Depression/Resilience/AK/Lucius/the first casuality/Hans-Pineal/Merlin/Squib

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 126684


Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG
rownups/message/126360

<< I remember some time ago somebody remarked that not paying much
attention to psychological well-being of Harry and many others could
simply be due to the fact that JKR endured many tough times in her
life and emerged the winner. Maybe her philosophy is that anybody
could beat whatever life throws at them by themselves, no outside help
needed and she applies that philosophy to her characters >>

When she had clinical depression, she had therapy for it. And I feel
that I've read some interview where she stated that people should seek
therapy if they need it, but I can't find that quote on Quick Quotes:

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/070
0-hottype-solomon.htm
"JK: Um, I was depressed, um, I'd say - would it be 1994 - I did
suffer a spell of what I was told was clinical depression. I don't
know, I was told it was. Yeah, I was depressed for a while. I'm not
ashamed of that, plenty of people get depressed and I've never
suffered from it again and I got through it. But the Dementors, uh,
it's so hard to trace the origin of something. I saw these things and
I knew what I wanted them to do, but they became, as I really thought
about what they did, I realized that's what I was doing. That's
normally the way it happens with me. I don't consciously think 'And
now, I will create the personification of depression' but as I'm
creating them I realize what I'm doing. You know, what unconsciously
is going on. So they create an absence of feeling, which is my
experience of depression. It is an absence
"

Btw I am always struck by the defensiveness of 'I'm not ashamed of
that'.

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0700-nyt-cowell.htm
"She acknowledged that she shook her depression in 1994 only with nine
months of counseling, realizing later that her continued ability to
write during this period was "a sign that I wasn't very badly
depressed."

Potioncat wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126388 :

<< I couldn't buy the idea that Harry could be treated the way he was
and still be a nice kid! although I'll accept Jen's professional
opinion on the matter. >>

I dunno if I accept Steve bboyminn's statement that wizards are as
much more resilient than Muggles psychologically as physically -- they
seem to be just as screwed up as us readers. I accept Jen's statement
that sometimes it happens in Real Life, but I thought only if the
child had not only natural resilience, but also some caring adult,
such as supportive schoolteacher. That's why, as everyone knows by
now, I agree with what 'someoneofsomeplace' John wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126411 :

<< BTW, I don't think we've by any means been given the full story on
*that* particular matter—I adhere to that idea which's been
floating around that Lily left some sort of loving imprint of herself
in Harry's sub-conscience, so that he would hang on to the feeling
that he had *some* worth as a human being, in spite of all that
Durlsley-neglect. I also think DD knew about this. How else would
Harry grow up to be the relatively healthy boy that we are introduced
to in PS/SS? >>

Shunra Shunrata wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126414 :

<< A question on the origin of Avada Kedavra -

As far as I know from learning Aramaic the original phrase was "avra
kedavra" - "I will create with my speech" - i.e. it is a
charm/spell/whatever of *creation*. In HP I see it as "avada kedavra"
which may be seen as coming from the root "avad" to be destroyed - "I
will destroy with my speech", which is pretty much what the avada
kedavra is supposed to do.

Does anyone know if this modification is intentional on JKR's part or
whether she was just mistaken on the original phrase? >>

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80
"Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It is an ancient
spell in Aramaic, and it is the original of abracadabra, which means
"let the thing be destroyed". Originally, it was used to cure
illness and the "thing" was the illness, but I decided to make it the
"thing" as in the person standing in front of me. I take a lot of
liberties with things like that. I twist them round and make them mine."

a_svirn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126368 :

<< So why on earth would he pledge his loyalty to a dangerous
power-hungry half-blood, who expects him to grovel and call him
"Master"?! There is nothing to be gained from such an arrangement 
for Lucius and everything to loose. >>

I figure Lucius's pledge of loyalty was a lie and his grovelling is
play-acting. IMHO Before HP vanquished LV the first time, Lucius was
planning to use LV to gain power for himself -- he figured that LV had
powerful magic, charisma, and such to lead a successful rebellion/coup
and crown himself Emperor of All Wizards, at which time The Emperor of
All Wizards would do whatever his 'faithful' 'servant' and lapdog
Lucius suggested that he do. Lucius is probably extremely irritated at
the re-appearance of That Loser with some kind of control over him via
the Dark Mark on his arm.

I like to think that Tom Riddle was Lucius's godfather and had some
influence over him growing up, which is why he is so *very* evil. I
also like to think that Lucius plans to betray LV at some point when
he has gotten all he can from LV, and that LV plans to demolish LM
just before LM betrays him, and LM does not know that LV knows that LM
plans to betray LV. The shocked surprise of the loser (I'm not sure
which one would lose) will be so funny!

Tinglinger wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126523 :

<< The Dark Lord always knows and is never forgiving. I fear that
Luna's dad will be one of the first, if not THE first casualty
of the Second War. >>

Bertha Jorkins was the first casualty, Frank Bryce the second, and
Cedric Diggory the third. Mr. Lovegood can't be earlier than fourth.

Hans Andrea wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126560 :

<< I have mentioned that Dumbledore's office is sure to symbolise the
pineal gland. This signifies to me that Bill personifies the crown
chakra. >>

I don't understand what connection there is between Dumbledore's
office and Bill Weasley. I also don't understand why the chronological
pattern was broken by putting Arthur & Molly (third eye chakra --
isn't third eye the pineal gland?) between Charlie (throat) and Bill
(crown).

Inkling wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126567 :

<< In fact Dumbledore himself is an archetype along the lines of
Merlin and Gandalf, but he is also a literary creation of the modern
age. We expect our wise old men to be compassionate and believably
human as well as archetypal, and so we expect them to intervene in the
hero's sufferings. (Merlin was not subject to these expectations and
did all his shady arrangements around Arthur's birth apparently
without a qualm). >>

No one expected Merlin to be good, as in virtuous. That's why one,
recently discussed, version of his story had him fathered by the
Devil.

We do expect Gandalf to be good, and I haven't heard anyone say that
he isn't; why not?

Alina wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126682 :

<< The real question is for me, whether someone who has one magical
and one muggle parent but can't do magic themselves is called
a squib or a muggle? >>

I'm sure the wizarding folk would *call* them a Muggle, but to me, if
they inherited the wizarding genes but the genes didn't work right,
they're a Squib, and if they didn't inherit the wizarding genes,
they're a Muggle. 

The pattern of inheritance seen in canon works best with the wizarding
genes being recessive (both the one you get from your mother and the
one you get from your father have to be magic for you to be magic);
the only way the child of a witch and wizard would lack magic is due
to some kind of birth defect, a fortunately rare event, and we're been
told that Squibs are rare. 

A person who inherited the magic version (m) from one parent and the
Muggle (M) version from the other parent, but two Muggles who are
heterozgous (mM) would have an average of one-quarter of their
children be mm, Muggle-born witches and wizards. I think the real
average is higher than the Mendelian average 1/4 because the m sperms
have a speed or longevity advantage in getting to the egg and the m
eggs might have an advantage in being ovulated, much the same way that
magic people have advantages when it comes to surviving being dropped
out of a window. 

Sometimes a recessive gene has some effect, even in one copy. Maybe
the Mm Muggles are a bit more 'psychic' or a bit more fond of fantasy
literature or have a bit better sense of humor than the MM Muggles,
anyway something that would make them MUCH more attractive to wizards
and witches than MM Muggles, so that all mixed marriages happen to Mm
Muggles, so that the Mendelian average would be that half the children
are mm magic. But canon seems to show all or most of the children of
these mixed marriages being magic, which is not Mendelian no matter
how you slice it. Maybe there is something like the Rh- factor, in
which an mm woman has tremendous difficulty in carrying an Mm child to
term ... like an acquaintance of mine who mentioned that her parents
had 21 miscarriages before she came along.