From lealess at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 00:23:44 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:23:44 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk60b0+3r5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6cig+d3le@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142360

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> <SNIP> 
> Book 5 first. IMO there are two objectionable situations in OotP, 
> both of them concerning Sirius. One, JKR chose to show the Single 
> Parent (as opposite to the Standard Family) in a bad light; two, 
> the other adults' responsibility concerning Sirius was overlooked.
> <SNIP>
> Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
> 
> `But while I was at the Dursleys',' interrupted Harry, his voice 
> growing stronger, `I realised I can't shut myself away or _ or 
> crack up. Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he? And anyway, 
> life's too short 
 look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance 
 it 
> could be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said fiercely, now 
> looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming in the wand-
> light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I 
> can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'
> 
> `Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true 
> godson!' said Dumbledore,  with an approving pat on Harry's back. 
> `I take my hat off to you _ or I would, if I were not afraid of 
> showering you in spiders.
> (from Chapter 2, `Horace Slughorn')
> 
> That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
> short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in 
> the series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and 
> moral debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As 
> many as you can!  
> 
> The problem word in that sentence being, of course, kill.
> 

Wading in here with trepidation.

I agree with you more than not.  I find much of the moral 
underpinnings of the books disturbing, to put it mildly.  The 
whole "girls follow the boys" message of HBP really depressed me.

I think the book 5 Sirius situation serves a literary purpose.  
Sirius' relationship vis-?-vis Harry serves to put him and his 
special "love" magic at peril, serves to isolate him and make him 
vulnerable to dark magic.  It is the same with Dumbledore, to a 
degree.  Dumbledore was reprehensible in HBP, stringing Harry along, 
as usual, on miniscule information, then leaving him to face a 
situation in which Harry not only is out for revenge, but may feel 
lingering guilt over his inability to prevent the death of someone he 
loves.  I think Harry's temptation by darkness may be a more 
pronounced theme in the next book, and the sacrifices of both Sirius 
and Dumbledore will play into that, as well as the counterbalancing 
loyalty and comradeship of Ron and Hermione, and Harry's one-
dimensional perception of "evil" villians.  Whether Harry will yield 
to bloodthirsty revenge and a full-on battle warp has yet to be seen, 
though significantly, he is now willing.

I don't underestimate the significance of that, either.  I think it 
is a dangerous message to send to youth, that violence is the answer 
to conflict.  The first time I finished HBP, I had a very strong 
reaction to Harry and his friends dropping out of school to, 
essentially, go off to war.  There are too many children fighting 
wars in this world.  I was disturbed by Harry's professed willingness 
to kill, as well.  I don't think that's a good message for anyone, 
but
 it may not be the message, ultimately.  Draco is an example of 
someone whose whole world was turned upside down when he tried to be 
a good soldier (perhaps not altogether willingly).

I agree that Sirius is depressed, and the adults just expect him to 
get over it.  It is the wizarding world, however, where they drop 
children out of windowd to see if they are magic and pit kids against 
dragons and hire purported psycho ex-Aurors to teach classes, and on 
and on.  I guess Rowling is trying to make the wizarding world 
unattractive.  You read the first book and think, oh, cool, I want to 
live in that world.  As you go along and the dirty underwear of the 
wizarding world is revealed, it is less attractive and more like our 
world, only a bit more rough.

As for Sirius being a single parent: he really doesn't have much of 
an opportunity to parent, though he tries, his support for Harry 
mainly echoing Harry's frustrations and suspicions.  I can't remember 
any other overt examples of single parents (except maybe Blaise 
Zambini's mom?) in the books.  For being full of a bunch of 
supposedly zany eccentrics, wizarding society seems extremely 
socially conservative in all ways, and disapproving of any variance.

> I had to read HBP a second time to convince myself Dumbledore was 
> not an impostor, just because of those two paragraphs.
> 

I've read theories that it wasn't Dumbledore who chided Harry into 
getting Slughorn's memory "by any means necessary" but rather someone 
polyjuiced to look like him.  Who knows?  Dumbledore was behaving 
peculiarly throughout the book, as if he was running out of time and 
patience.  It started at the Dursleys, where he knocks them on the 
head with drinks (which some found amusing, but I found rude), then 
scolds them for abusing their son, without going into detail.  So why 
was he behaving so strangely?  He may have been dying.

lealess







From Nanagose at aol.com  Tue Nov  1 01:11:24 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:11:24 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6at3+5k28@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6fbs+ud9d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142361

> > lucianam:
> >
> > Of course it'd be very na?ve to expect a book to match one's own 
> > moral standards, being part of the reading experience to disagree 
> > with the author's views once in while. ButI... Children still 
> > can't fully understand that a book is not an infallible source 
> > of wisdom, but justsomething someone wrote. ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Don't sell children short, they understand more than you think,
> though, I must agree they do not have an adult's perspective on 
> life.

Christina:

I agree, and from what JKR has said in various interviews, I think she
agrees too.  I went to the really huge HBP release party at that mall
in Illinois, and I had the opportunity to talk to some of the younger
HP fans.  I was shocked by how intelligent and sophisticated a lot of
these kids were.  I got into a pretty deep discussion with a little
girl about Sirius's ultimate purpose in the books, Snape's possible
childhood background, and how the Marauders might have come to lose
trust in one another.  The Harry Potter books demand a sort of
maturity in thinking- I think they appeal much more to smart and
complex children.  Even in terms of plot, the books are complex. 
While reading the ending of GoF, I had to stop every once in a while
to make sure I was understanding what was going on.
 
> > lucianam:
> > ...edited...
> > 
> > Book 5 first. ... JKR chose to show the Single Parent ... in a 
> > bad light; two, the other adults' responsibility concerning 
> > Sirius was overlooked.
> > 
> > ... the fact that she chose to write Harry's legitimate guardian,
> > a single man appointed by his own mother and father, as a slighty 
> > deranged, reckless, moody, tragic man, smelling of booze and `a 
> > case of arrested development' too. 
<snip>
> > I find such a negative portrait of a potential 
> > alternative family ? Harry and Sirius ? in opposition to the 
> > perfect family, the Weasleys, to be very unrealistic. ...

Christina:

Yes, but look at the ultimate "conventional" family in HP- the
Dursley's! *shudder* Hermione has two parents, but it seems as though
they don't really understand her; while I'm sure they love her, she
seems to spend an awful lot of time away from them.  Draco Malfoy has
a conventional family as well, and we all know how much hugging must
go on in *that* household.  The only character I can think of at the
moment who is raised by one person is Neville- and while his
grandmother can be a bit harsher than Neville will like at times, I
would argue that she raised one of the most compassionate, loyal, and
morally upstanding characters in the entire series (sorry, I just
can't ever seem to resist the opportunity to gush about Neville).

> lucianam:
> Those characteristics make Sirius clearly unfit as a substitute
> parent, and they are stressed by Molly's attacks and Hermione's
> agreement with Molly.

Christina:

I would argue that I don't think JKR means to imply that the Weasley's
are a "better" family for Harry than Sirius would be.  I think her
main point in having Molly and Sirius disagree (and Dumbledore and
Lupin's opinions come in it also) is to show that just because
somebody loves you and wants what is best for you doesn't mean that
they are actually *doing* what is best for you.  And really, I think
that Molly (and Hermione's) disapproval of Sirius wasn't what JKR
herself agreed with.  First of all, Lupin, who is a huge voice of
reason in the HP series, agrees with Sirius, who *does* get his way
and gets to tell Harry some information.  Also, Molly sides with
Dumbledore in saying that Harry doesn't need to know a whole lot about
what's going on.  I think this sentiment is wrong and JKR demonstrates
that with showing all of the tragic things that happen because Harry
*isn't* told things that he should know (ie, why he must learn
Occlumency).

Going back to what you were saying about Sirius's personality as a
whole (and I *wish* I had my copy of GoF with me so I could quote the
exact passage), but I would disagree that Sirius is characteristically
moody, deranged, and alcoholically unbalanced.  Look at him in the end
of GoF- he comes immediately to Harry's aid (isn't he there before
even Mrs. Weasley?) and holds on to Harry's shoulders so hard that it
hurts him.  He seems to have gotten a bit better since the end of PoA-
the reason he turns into a moody, brooding presense in book five is
because of his confinement in his parents home, which I suspect turned
out to bother him more than he thought it would.  I think that having
Sirius stuck in his parents house served as a way JKR could have Harry
relate to his godfather- Harry is awfully moody and depressed when he
is stuck in the Dursley's house himself.

>lucianam:
>Why was it okay to leave Sirius to his own devices, if it was clear
>even to Harry (a child) that he was depressed? It struck me as an
>ugly case of abandonment....
>All we have is Sirius having `fits of the sullens', avoiding contact
>with the others, retiring to Buckbeak's room, etc. It gives the
>reader the impression it was all his own choice, perhaps to excuse
>the members of the Order (and Dumbledore) of their responsability
>towards a friend in need.

Christina:

There's a war going on, and there's just no time for a secret
fighting-the-dark-side organization to sit around coddling a grown
man.  Sirius is sullen and withdrawn for a reason- he's stuck in his
parents' house and can't be with Harry (and the poor guy has Kreacher
and his mom's portrait nagging at him).  There is no way to fix these
problems; even Sirius himself knows this.  Therefore, there really
isn't anything to be done about it.


> bboyminn:
> 
> I think part of the appeal of the JKR books, especially to young
> people, is that the world and the people in it are just as flawed 
> and imperfect as people are in real life.

Christina:

Exactly.  *All* of the characters have huge flaws (even Harry the Hero
and Dumbledore), which is the way life really is.

> bboyminn:
> But /he binds himself/ to Grimmauld place out of a sense of
> duty and loyalty. Miserable as it is, war brings out the heroes even
> in the worst of us.

Christina:

Sirius might not always make the best choices, but he is trying his
best to be useful and to make things right.  He gives the Order 12GP
knowing that he'll be stuck there, and he does it anyway.  And
although I'm glad that JKR isn't trying to write a PC series, I think
this is a great message to kids about sacrifice- even somebody who
hasn't gotten much of a chance to cultivate maturity can still show
displays of the trait.

> lucianam:
>....snip...
>
>That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in
>short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in the
>series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral
>debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As many
>as you can!

Christina:

I read this passage as being in the same vein as Harry's thoughts
during the climax of GoF- how he wasn't going to die lying down, that
even if there wasn't a single defense that he could use to save
himself, that he was going to die standing straight and tall like a
man, like his father (and mother) did, which says a lot about bravery
and dignity.

>lucianam:
>Just so we keep the comparisons mundane, haven't we watched
>Apocalypse Now? The Deer Hunter? Any war movies at all? Don't most
>of them try to show the dilemma of taking human life? 

Christina:

Well yes, but since I was just watching "Pearl Harbor" the other
night, I'll give you this bit of dialogue:

"I wasn't built to be a prisoner, so I'd have my crew bail out and I'd
find the sweetest military spot and drive my nose right through it,
killing as many of those bastards as I could. But that's just me."

>lucianam:
>What about books, isn't there a book called the Prisoner of Azkaban?
>I thought I read something there about `becoming a murderer' being a
>bad thing.

Christina:

I know you said that you're not trying to start the "righteous war"
debate and believe me, I shudder as much as you do at the thought
(*grin*), but I think that is part of the point.  Sirius and Remus
were about to kill Peter in PoA in cold blood, as revenge.  Peter was
unarmed and could not defend himself.  I would argue that that
situation is completely different from one where Harry is being attacked.

Overall, I hear your point about the potential messages that JKR is
sending to children (the books deal with some heavy topics), but I
believe that the children that are attracted to Harry Potter in the
first place are a quick lot.  I like that the characters aren't just
"good" or "evil," that sometimes people can have the best intentions
(Dumbledore, Sirius, Harry, etc.) and still make huge mistakes.  I
think that JKR sends the *better* message that the "right" choices are
not always easy to see- sometimes we have to sit a think for a long
while to tease out whether our actions have been in line with our
moral standard or not.  I think that instead of spoonfeeding her
readers her own morality, JKR takes the better route and writes books
that enable children to start conversations about their own moral code
and the moral codes of their peers, parents, and other adults.  For
the most part, I think JKR raises many more moral questions than she
answers, encouraging the reader to constantly think and question,
which I would argue is much more valuable for children these days.


Christina






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 01:33:48 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:33:48 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6at3+5k28@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6gls+m5pq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142362

> > lucianam:
> >
> > On to more OotP disagreement. 
> > 
> > Why was it okay to leave Sirius to his own devices, if it was 
> > clear even to Harry ... that he was depressed? It struck me as 
an 
> > ugly case of abandonment. ... I don't even know if JKR noticed 
she 
> > wrote it! 
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> <SNIP>
> So, Sirius is depressed. Here are his choices; he can live 
depressed
> or he can die depressed. He is an escaped criminal, the most 
notorious
> murderer and escapee in the wizard world. Ten thousand Galleon 
reward
> on his head. He is being hunted across continents. He is believe 
to be
> so dangerous that it seems obvious that any law enforcement that
> encounters him, will shoot first and ask questions later. 
> 
> So, which is worse, being depressed or being shot dead in the 
streets?




Alla:

Steve, I am in agreement with many parts of your reply to Lucianam's 
post, but not about Sirius' situation.

See, I did not buy that there was nothing that could be done about 
Sirius, except stucking him in the home, which he left behind at 
sixteen, I did not buy it at all.

Oh, and when I say that something could be done, I do NOT mean that 
Dumbledore had to do something special for Sirius, not at all, I 
only mean that he could have come up with SOMETHING for Sirius to 
do, any task would have been better than doing nothing.

Sirius' safety is important? Sure, it is, but we do NOT know for 
sure that every DE knows about his animagus form, otherwise he could 
have been hunted down after he escaped from Azkaban and was on the 
Islands ( or in whatever place he was hiding). He could have gone on 
the missions as Padfoot, any kind of mission, IMO.


I might have found the excuse of "keeping Sirius safe" to be more 
convincing, IF we did not see that at the end of GoF Dumbledore 
sends Sirius off to alert "old crowd".

Erm... what exactly changed so significantly in what two, three 
months that Sirius is not allowed out of the house anymore? I mean, 
the war started sure, but it seems to me that somebody could spot 
Sirius on this mission too, no?

And of course, Sirius could have walked out of the house, but he was 
being a good soldier and did what general ordered, IMO. Does not 
excuse the poor orders of the general, IMO.


Again, I am simply not buying that the choices for Sirius were to 
live depressed or to die depressed. It seems to me that if 
Dumbledore would simply pay more attention then Sirius' choices 
could have been to live or die of course, but not necessarily 
depressed. 

Oh, and of course Harry has invisibility cloak. I think he would not 
have minded giving it to Sirius if he needed to go on a mission 
undiscovered.

I think I agree with Lealess in that Sirius' situation was simply 
plot dictated.

IMO, Dumbledore had reasons to ask for Harry's forgiveness in how he 
handled Sirius'. I think that Harry summed it up in " people do not 
like to be locked up" really well.



Lucianam73 wrote:
> Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
><SNIP of the quote that could be read UPTHREAD>
> (from Chapter 4, `Horace Slughorn')
<SNIP> 
> What I'm saying is: I very much object to how little_ or even none 
_ 
> room to debate JKR left in those two paragraphs. She left 
absolutely 
> no question of how great it is that Harry wants to kill Death 
> Eaters. She very specifically says Dumbledore enthusiastically 
> approves of this plan. 


Alla:

I interpret this quote differently. Harry says that he would take as 
many DE with him as he could IF he could be taken out and Dumbledore 
approves of it, IMO, because it is absolute self defense, IMO, 
nothing more , nothing less.

Others commented on heroic aspect of Harry' speech, it did not quite 
work that well for me, because it sounded to me as if Harry tried to 
push his grief for Sirius out of his mind and puts on brave front, 
even if he really does not feel that bravado ( I was extremely 
pleased how JKR handled Harry's grief in general in HBP, but THIS 
part I did find a bit annoying)

But nowhere in this quote have I noticed Harry's desire to go out 
and kill DE, UNLESS they would want to kill him. 

JMO of course,

Alla








From ellecain at yahoo.com.au  Tue Nov  1 02:43:28 2005
From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:43:28 -0000
Subject: Sirius' situation was Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6gls+m5pq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6kog+bk8b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142363

> 
> Alla: <snip>
> 
> See, I did not buy that there was nothing that could be done about 
> Sirius, except stucking him in the home, which he left behind at 
> sixteen, I did not buy it at all.

Elyse: I didnt buy it either. This was one of the reasons why OOTP 
was so profoundly unsatisfying for me. I had *loved* GoF in which 
Sirius acted completely sane and I didnt like the way his character 
changed into a moody depressed boozer in the next book. I understand 
that he had to die but did JKR have to make him so thoroughly 
depressed and unbalanced? This is the only reason I start waving 
my "JKR is mean" flag.....<unfurls flag and waves it>

> Alla
> Oh, and when I say that something could be done, I do NOT mean 
that 
> Dumbledore had to do something special for Sirius, not at all, I 
> only mean that he could have come up with SOMETHING for Sirius to 
> do, any task would have been better than doing nothing.

Elyse: Once again, I agree completely. I remember Ron saying Charlie 
was in Romania so I'm pretty sure Sirius could have been sent on 
international misssions every once in a while.I dont know whether 
the British MoM had the power to make say the French or German MoM 
hand him over had he been seen in another country. But still, I was 
as frustrated as Siriu smust have been while reading the book. I 
dont think he should have had to waste the last year of his life 
cooped up in his parents house solving Daily Prophet crosswords to 
pass the time.


> Alla:
> Sirius' safety is important? Sure, it is, but we do NOT know for 
> sure that every DE knows about his animagus form, otherwise he 
could 
> have been hunted down after he escaped from Azkaban and was on the 
> Islands ( or in whatever place he was hiding). He could have gone 
on 
> the missions as Padfoot, any kind of mission, IMO.

Elyse: And even if all the DE's did know his Animagus form, they 
could hardly shoot him on the street. I imagine bystanders would 
have been extremely shocked if a passerby suddenly killed a dog on 
the street without any provocation whatsoever. And anyway, didnt 
Sirius know all the DeathEater's identities through Harry? He could 
have stayed away from them while doing work for the Order. I think 
his dog disguise would have been a better used to spy on people, 
maybe better than Snape, since people arent fussed what they say 
around a stray dog.


> Alla <snip excellent points that I agree completely with>
> 
> Again, I am simply not buying that the choices for Sirius were to 
> live depressed or to die depressed. It seems to me that if 
> Dumbledore would simply pay more attention then Sirius' choices 
> could have been to live or die of course, but not necessarily 
> depressed. <snip>
> 
> I think I agree with Lealess in that Sirius' situation was simply 
> plot dictated.
> 

Elyse: Yes I think it was just there to fulfil the plot, and this is 
why I didnt like OOTP as much as the rest of the books. I think it 
was Lupinlore who said that character should dictate plot and not 
the other way around. I think the whole point of OOTP was the 
prophecy and Sirius' death, and they could both have been brought 
about in another way, IMO. In any case, I was in way too much shock 
after Sirius' death to pay much attention the prophecy :-)

> 
> Lucianam73 wrote:
> > Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
> ><SNIP of the quote that could be read UPTHREAD>
> > (from Chapter 4, `Horace Slughorn')
> <SNIP> 
> > What I'm saying is: I very much object to how little_ or even 
none 
> _ 
> > room to debate JKR left in those two paragraphs. She left 
> absolutely 
> > no question of how great it is that Harry wants to kill Death 
> > Eaters. She very specifically says Dumbledore enthusiastically 
> > approves of this plan. 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I interpret this quote differently. Harry says that he would take 
as 
> many DE with him as he could IF he could be taken out and 
Dumbledore 
> approves of it, IMO, because it is absolute self defense, IMO, 
> nothing more , nothing less.

Elyse: Yes I think that here, Harry is only saying this in the 
situation where if he doesnt kill them first, they will kill him. 
Absolute self defense. Otherwise as he says in HBP, he would be best 
pals with them if they didnt keep trying to do him in... ;-)

> Alla:
> Others commented on heroic aspect of Harry' speech, it did not 
quite 
> work that well for me, because it sounded to me as if Harry tried 
to 
> push his grief for Sirius out of his mind and puts on brave front, 
> even if he really does not feel that bravado ( I was extremely 
> pleased how JKR handled Harry's grief in general in HBP, but THIS 
> part I did find a bit annoying)
> 

Elyse: I was really relieved to see the back of Angry!Harry as well, 
but I think his grief in HBP was slightly glossed over.
However that speech annoyed me as well, because it sounded slightly 
arrogant and melodramatic, even if the sentiments behind it were 
sincere. Harry's bravery does come through, but it smacks slightly 
of theatrics and ends up more like sixteen year old bravado

Elyse (who really just wanted to say 'I agree' but couldnt post a 
one liner)






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 02:45:16 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:45:16 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6cig+d3le@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6krs+n8be@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142364

Responding to two messages in the thread...

lucianam wrote:
> > Book 5 first. IMO there are two objectionable situations in OotP, 
> > both of them concerning Sirius. One, JKR chose to show the Single 
> > Parent (as opposite to the Standard Family) in a bad light; 

zgirnius:
If two parent families were portrayed as uniformly better than the 
Harry and Sirius relationship, I might see better where you are 
coming from. But Harry's actual, legal parents, who raised him, are 
the Dursleys. They are a very conventional 2 parent family, and very 
awful as parents.

Sirius, on the other hand, clearly cares deeply about Harry and takes 
his responsibility seriously. He tries to advise and support Harry 
with his problems. In the end, he dies while on a mission to rescue 
Harry from Death Eaters. I think especially young readers are very 
likely to walk away with the idea that Harry would have been much 
better off with Sirius instead of the Dursleys...

> > lucianam: 
> > the other adults' responsibility concerning Sirius was overlooked.

I think JKR did know what she was writing here. And she did have DD 
address it in that conversation at the end of OotP, by reminding 
Harry that Sirius was in danger of his life if he left 12 GP. Both 
from DEs and overzealous MoM employees. The situation for Sirius was 
not great, but there were few alternatives.

And I would agree that some characters treated Sirius badly and 
exacerbated the situation, for their own reasons. Snape, obviously, 
but he really does hate Sirius and I'm sure readers of all ages 
grasped that this was not good behavior on Snape's part. And Molly 
Weasley, who was, it seemed to me, acting out of her own motherly 
feelings towards Harry. I did not feel, however, that JKR was 
endorsing Molly's behavior. Not only did she have Harry express 
negative thoughts about it, but she also had other characters (Lupin, 
at least) disagree with her about things.

> > lucianam:
> > Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
> > 
> > `But while I was at the Dursleys',' interrupted Harry, his voice 
> > growing stronger, `I realised I can't shut myself away or _ or 
> > crack up. Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he? And anyway, 
> > life's too short 
 look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance 
 
it 
> > could be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said fiercely, 
now 
> > looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming in the 
wand-
> > light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I 
> > can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'
> > 
> > `Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true 
> > godson!' said Dumbledore,  with an approving pat on Harry's back. 
> > `I take my hat off to you _ or I would, if I were not afraid of 
> > showering you in spiders.
> > (from Chapter 2, `Horace Slughorn')
> > 
> > That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
> > short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in 
> > the series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and 
> > moral debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. 
> > As many as you can!  

zgirnius:
Well, yes. At least, when they are in the process of killing you. 
Harry is affirming that he considers it likely that he will be killed 
by Death Eaters in a lopsided fight, outnumbered. And that, when this 
happens, he plans to go down fighting. While there is a purely 
pacifist ethical position that violence and killing of any kind are 
completely unacceptable, centuries of thinkers on religion, ethics, 
and morality would find Harry's position defensible at worst. (Lots 
of them would agree with Dumbledore's stated approval of Harry's 
views.)

> lealess:
> I agree with you more than not.  I find much of the moral 
> underpinnings of the books disturbing, to put it mildly.  The 
> whole "girls follow the boys" message of HBP really depressed me.

zgirnius:
Not sure what you mean here...Ginny's acceptance of the break-up at 
the end? I don't think Ginny has accepted it, so I'm not bothered by 
it. I'm believe she plans to pick her moment and resume the 
discussion.

Tonks' depression over Lupin? In the end she overcomes his 
objections, and gets her man. I did find the whole changed Patronus 
thing annoying, so maybe I agree with you there. I did wonder whether 
it had some other function. A red herring? Establishing the 
possibility of such a change for future use?

Merope Gaunt? Well, she was certainly a sorry specimen of female 
humanity, but with what we saw of her home life this neither 
surprised nor bothered me.

Hermione? I can't fit her into 'girls follow the boys' at all, maybe 
I'm not seeing something.

> lealess:
> I think the book 5 Sirius situation serves a literary purpose.  
> Sirius' relationship vis-?-vis Harry serves to put him and his 
> special "love" magic at peril, serves to isolate him and make him 
> vulnerable to dark magic.  

zgirnius:
Yes, but Sirius also provides the focus for a demonstration of Lover 
Magic. Voldemort possesses Harry at the MoM, and Harry (who is in 
great pain) hopes that Dumbledore will just kill them both and end 
it. He then thinks happily that he will be rejoining Sirius, which is 
the point at which Voldemort can take no more and leaves Harry. It is 
Harry becoming filled with love for Sirius that accomplishes this.

> lealess:
> It is the same with Dumbledore, to a 
> degree.  Dumbledore was reprehensible in HBP, stringing Harry 
along, 
> as usual, on miniscule information, then leaving him to face a 
> situation in which Harry not only is out for revenge, but may feel 
> lingering guilt over his inability to prevent the death of someone 
he 
> loves.  

zgirnius:
So much has been written so often by so many on this list on the 
subject that I am afraid I do not recall your views of what happened 
on the Tower...so it is hard for me to assess why you feel Dumbledore 
is culpable. Personally, I do not believe that Dumbledore 
orchestrated events to ensure that Harry got to witness his murder by 
Snape. (My guess is, that is the *last* thing he would have wanted). 

He is surely still be making the mistake of not giving Harry full 
information, or fully listening to what Harry tries to tell him, but 
I don't see this as a problem with the ethics of JKR's books. DD is 
not lying to Harry, or misleading him, just not telling him 
everything. Which is a mistake that leads to his death, so the author 
is hardly endorsing his actions.

> lealess:
> I think Harry's temptation by darkness may be a more 
> pronounced theme in the next book, and the sacrifices of both 
Sirius 
> and Dumbledore will play into that, as well as the counterbalancing 
> loyalty and comradeship of Ron and Hermione, and Harry's one-
> dimensional perception of "evil" villians.  Whether Harry will 
yield 
> to bloodthirsty revenge and a full-on battle warp has yet to be 
seen, 
> though significantly, he is now willing.

zgirnius:
I agree 100% that this is a theme which she set up that I expect to 
see come to the fore in Book 7. But since I expect Harry's 'good 
side' to win out, I expect not to object to the way in which this 
theme plays out.

> lealess:
> I don't underestimate the significance of that, either.  I think it 
> is a dangerous message to send to youth, that violence is the
> answer to conflict.  

zgirnius:
First, Harry and the Order are not reacting to 'conflict'. They are 
reacting to violence. Murder, terrorism, blackmail, and so forth. 
Voldemort does not strike me as a leader who can be successfully 
dealt with using non-violent methods of conflict resolution, W. 
Slinkhard's text on DADA notwithstanding ;). 

And I think the kids old enough to be reading the series grasp the 
difference between dealing with a Dark Lord, and their own 
schoolyard 'enemies'.

I recently reread Chapter 24 (Sectumsempra) of HBP, and I think this 
chapter does a great job of illustrating this, in a way. Draco is 
Harry's biggest 'enemy' at school. And Harry is absolutely horrified 
by what he does to Draco. *Even though* Draco was clearly the one who 
escalated the fight all along. (Drew first, threw the first hex, and 
started to cast a Crucio...)







From Nanagose at aol.com  Tue Nov  1 02:53:14 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:53:14 -0000
Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3??
In-Reply-To: <djtlha+mbm6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6laq+90o1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142365

Christina:

I know it's been a few days, but you made some good points that I
really wanted to address, so here we go... :)

> Expectopatronnie:
> 
> Well, I know I must be in denial, but this is exactly why I believe 
> Sirius is not *dead* dead - I think he's only caught in the death 
> substance, just like the bird (& DE's head) are caught in time-
> substance. But this truely belongs to a different thread...

Christina:

I just wanted to say that I've never heard Sirius!lives defended in
that way...but was that DE ever able to return to normal?  I mean, if
the Death Eater could never rectify time's influence, then nobody
could ever rectify death's influence on Sirius either.

> Expectopatronnie:
> What I do want to make clear, is that IMO wizards can only get 
> killed with strong magical spells, such as AK.

Christina:

You're absolutely right about wizards being tough to kill- this has to
be true, or else Harry would have died as a baby when the house
collapsed around him.  However, I think that although they are
resilient to physical injury, I would argue that a large part of their
vitality also has to do with the fact that they can fix the physical
injuries that they *do* get.  For example, in CoS, Harry's arm *does*
break when the bludger hits it.  It just isn't a problem because
wizards can fix broken bones.

However, a wizard's ability to overcome injury depends on their having
somebody around to fix it.  Tonks took a very nasty fall in OotP that
knocked her out.  She's OK because the Order members get her to St.
Mungos, but if nobody had been there to pick her up and get her fixed,
would she have died (ditto Moody, who was bleeding from the head)?

The point I'm trying to make is that yes, wizards are less likely to
be injured than Muggles are, but it still happens.  Death Eater
killings tended to be occur when the victim was alone (they don't seem
to like the huge battle scene)- if a DE decided to use magic to send a
rock or something flying at somebody else's head, I think that it
would crack their skull just as Harry's bludger cracked his arm.  I
might be getting a bit gruesome here, but you get the point.  If
nobody was around to fix the victim's injury, wouldn't they die?  We
have several examples of ways in which a wizard can be killed without
Avada Kedavra.  It is suggested that Sectumsempra, for example, would
have killed Malfoy if Snape hadn't been there to mutter the
countercurse.  He probably would have bled to death.  Without the
bezoar, I believe that Ron would have died from the poison he was
given.  If the Weasley twins hadn't given Katie Bell (I think it was
her?) the antidote to their nose-bleeding candy, wouldn't she have
bled to death, too?  She was getting awfully pale.  Given the
existence of Sectumsempra and Umbridge's quills, I don't find it a
stretch to think that there are some *very* sadistic spells out there
that can kill a wizard (ie, a spell that severs limbs, cuts, drains
the body of blood, transfigures blood into something else, etc).  A
Death Eater could even put somebody under Imperious and have them kill
themselves. 


> Expectopatronnie:
> 
> I had the other meaning of 'rat' in mind. You're right - of course 
> he was aimed at in his human form.   

Christina:

Haha!  Well, that teaches *me* not to post before my midmorning cup of
Earl Grey, now, doesn't it? :)


> > Christina:
> > 
> > Are you saying that the Death Eaters didn't want to cast an AK for 
> > fear of smashing the prophecy (I'm not sure if I'm understanding 
> you 
> > correctly).  If so, that seems like an unlikely excuse, given the 
> > fact that they are throwing stunning spells around left and right 
> > and blowing things up.
> 
> Expectopatronnie:
> I meant that they didn't want Harry to smash the prophecy on 
> purpose! Even in the mess at the scene in the DoM, there seemed to 
> have been a status quo, initiated by Harry <snip>

Christina:

Ah, OK, I did misunderstand you.  Thanks for clarifying.  I hear your
point, but at the same time, Harry knows that the only thing keeping
him and his friends alive is the prophecy.  Even if a Death Eater
killed one of the kids, there's no way Harry would smash the prophecy.
 It would doom the remaining kids immediately (Lucius even says, "Wait
until we've got the prophecy," which implies to me that he intended on
hurting at least Harry).

> Expectopatronnie:
> The AK curses (and Sirius' so-called death) arive much later in the 
> plot - after the Order members arive, and the DEs have nothing more 
> to loose. 

Christina:

They still have the prophecy to lose- Lucius remains committed to
getting it even after the Order members have arrived (he nearly
strangles Harry in his efforts).  Even after Sirius has fallen through
the veil, Bellatrix is still determined to get it (and shows, through
her fear, that she knows she'll be punished if she lets it slip
through her fingers).

I think it's also significant to note that the Death Eaters do a
pretty good job of taking down the Order members without using AK-
Tonks, Sirius, and Moody are all taken out of the battle by other
means (I feel like Kingsley was injured too, but I can't find it). 
Most of the children are injured through other means as well (Hermione
and the cutting curse, Ginny breaks her ankle, Neville is bleeding and
can't stop moving his legs, etc).  And although I do think that the
flashes of green light were AK spells, we can't really prove it. 
There must be other spells that are green, and we don't hear a rush of
air like we have most of the other times one has been cast.

 
> > Christina:
> > 
> > Horcruxes must cause more damage than just casting AK's all around.
> >   If as many people are able to cast a killing curse as you say,
> >  and if they are as common as you say, why 
> > aren't all *those* people gradually becoming less and less human?  
> > Why do the other Death Eaters seem so human and sane (minus our 
> > friends who have spent time in Azkaban of course)?  
> 
> Expectopatronnie: 
<snip>
> However, it is true that only VM *looks* less and less human. (I 
> don't buy the 'sane' part - Lucius Malfoy or Walden Macnair are as 
> antisocial as VM. So what makes him look this way? Is it the 
> Horcruxs? Or maybe the countless AK's VM has performed? or - and 
> this is my 'Father's Law'psychological theory - maybe it has 
> something to do with killing one's own father? 

Christina:

I think you're right about every AK damaging the soul, making each
person less and less human, which is basically what made me come to
the conclusion that it must be the Horcrux-making that affected
Voldemort so much.  We see that he delegates a lot of his killings to
the Death Eaters- it is implied that only "special" people are killed
by Voldemort personally.  That leads me to doubt that Voldemort has
committed *that* many more murders than some of his main followers.  

The "killing one's own father" thing is *very* interesting.  We've
heard about the powerful magic that resides in blood (Lily's sacrifice
and Harry's protected status at the Dursley's).  Maybe destroying
one's own blood gives kind of the opposite affect?  Perhaps killing a
blood relative somehow "taints" or curses one's life, liking killing a
Unicorn and drinking it's blood does?  It doesn't account for a
gradual change in LV's appearance (I still think it's the horcruxes
that do that), but it certainly fits in well with JKR's thematic
style.  Bellatrix Lestrange was already pretty batty, but maybe
killing Sirius (or temporarily submerging him in death, if you prefer)
furthered that a bit?  Or maybe it has sealed some kind of fateful end
for her? (We can only hope!)


> Expectopatronnie:
> 
> I really agree with you on that one Christina! So how exactly *do* 
> you thing the Horcruxes operate? Do you think that AK's weaken 
> you're powers unless you make a Horcrux and encase your split soul 
> using the energy discharged from the AK curse?

Christina:

I think that while an AK might not necessarily weaken your powers per
se, it does do spiritual and perhaps mental damage as well.  I think
that the making of the Horcruxes enhances this damage.  When we look
at the young Tom Riddle, he is charming, charismatic, and very mindful
of his actions and general demeanor.  In the present time of the
books, he seems a touch deranged.  So, while Voldemort still might
possess the sheer force of magical power that he always has, I think
his reasoning skills and ability to act rationally might be a little
skewed (ie, I think he really fumbled the Draco Malfoy situation;
also, however convinced Voldemort was that Harry wouldn't be able to
duel, it was stupid to give him back his wand in GoF).  We know that
being in Harry's head hurt Voldemort a LOT- does this have anything to
do with the fact that Voldemort's soul is so fractured?

I think that it is our souls that make us human.  A soul broken by AK
would lead to a broken human, but actually removing parts of that soul
leaves someone who is *less* human.  Kind of like the difference
between injuring your arm and cutting it off.  I haven't quite decided
yet whether a soul split by AK can repair itself- I think it's most
likely that a split soul is damaged forever, but by retaining all the
pieces inside you, you can maybe make it so that one day the pieces
(while still individual pieces) can work together.  A Horcrux would
make this impossible.

> > Expectopatronnie:
> Can anything be a horcrux? 

Christina:

Hmmm...I'm going to say yes to this one, although I think some things
are better choices than others.  For example, I find it highly
unlikely that Voldemort would put a part of his soul into anything
living, since they would have their own free will.  This is why I find
Horcrux!Nagini such a strange notion.  However, I find myself running
into a few problems in assuming that anything can be a Horcrux.  What
if you try and make a ham sandwich into a Horcrux?  Where would the
person's soul actually be- in the ham, the bread, or the mustard?  Or
perhaps spread evenly throughout?  What if somebody *ate* the
sandwich.  Would that just destroy the horcrux, or would the piece of
your soul inhabit the hungry snacker?  OK, I sound silly, but it's not
that far-fetched a question.  Harry destroyed the diary by shoving the
poisonous fang in it, but what would have happened if he had decided
(not even knowing that the thing was a Horcrux) to rip out a page or
something to use as a parchment scrap.  Would that have destroyed the
horcrux?  Would he have not been able to rip it out at all?  Would it
have "split" the Horcrux into two Horcruxes- the one paper and then
the rest of the book?  I'm taking this pretty far, but I think it's
worth questioning- destroying a Horcrux doesn't look easy.  How will
Harry manage to get rid of the other ones?  How did Dumbledore strip
the Gaunt ring of its Horcrux-ness without destroying the ring itself?

> Expectopatronnie:
> Can you produce a horcrux from any AK, or does it have to 
> be a particularly cold-blood/meaningfull murder? 

Christina:

I think it can be any murder, but Voldemort likes the murders to be
meaningful (just like he likes the Horcrux objects he chooses to be
meaningful).


Christina







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 03:32:07 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:32:07 -0000
Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum?
In-Reply-To: <dk3gh1+v5cr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6njn+ptjf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142366

<Big snip>
Orna wrote:
> > I thought maybe Voldermort encased the horcrux, and Regulus (or
> whoever RAB is) was a DE, who got the mission to "put" it in the
> cave, or play some other part in concealing it there.
> 
> Goddlefrood responded:
> 
> Your addition, while not impossible, is rather improbable. Knowing 
> LV as we do, or perhaps as we think we do, I find it extraordinarily 
> unlikely that LV would trust anyone at all to place his horcruxes. 
> In the cave with Dumbledore and Harry it is suggested that LV placed 
> the enchantments himself. <snip>

Carol adds:
Maybe the missing piece here is Bellatrix. In HBP ("Spinner's End"),
she says "In the past he has entrusted me with his most important--"
and then breaks off (quoted from memory). In OoP we discover that
Kreacher treasures her photograph. Suppose, for the sake of argument,
that LV entrusted Bellatrix to place the Horcrux in the cave, that for
reasons unknown she brought the devoted Kreacher along with her, and
that Regulus somehow found out about it and ordered Kreacher to go
back to the cave with him? I'm guessing that Bellatrix was a frequent
guest at her aunt and uncle's house or at least a favorite relative as
they kept a photograph of her and their house-elf was devoted to her,
so Reggie might have overheard a conversation between Bellatrix and
Mrs. Black.

I'm not postulating that either of them was the potion maker (a
permanent sticking Charm is not a potion or evidence for skill at
potion making), and I have no idea how Reggie figured out that the
locket was a Horcrux (I doubt that LV confided that information to
Bellatrix or she to anyone else), but I do think that the
Bellatrix/Kreacher link will prove important. And of course Kreacher's
addled brain could be explained by having been forced to drink the
potion (I don't think Regulus would drink it himself, and we see
Slughorn using house-elves to check for poison, so we have a precedent
for that use for a house-elf's devotion).

I'm very much aware that this is not a full-fledged theory, but I'm
wondering if anyone can provide additional support for it.

 
> Goddlefrood still wondering which constellation Mrs. Black would be 
> named after...
>
Carol responds:
Mrs. Black's references to "the house of my fathers" are puzzling as
it ought to be "the house of my husband's fathers." (Maybe she had
lost all sense of her own ancestry in adopting her husband's family
identity as her own?) IOW, she's a Black by marriage, not by
birth--unless Mr. Black married his first or second cousin, whose name
was also Black, in which case the brothers Sirius and Regulus are
lucky that they weren't as abnormal as Merope and Morfin Gaunt,
especially since their mother seems to have been somewhat elderly when
she gave birth to them. 

But to return to the point, unless she was a Black by birth or her
mother was a Black, she wouldn't have been named after a
constellation. (And if her mother was a Black, the "house of my
fathers" reference must skip a generation.)

Carol, thinking that Narcissa (a Black by birth) should have been
Cassiopeia







From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 04:02:18 2005
From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 04:02:18 -0000
Subject: War (Was: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
In-Reply-To: <dk6cig+d3le@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6pca+2mie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142367

lucianam73
That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in the 
series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral 
debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As many 
as you can!

Lealess:
I think it is a dangerous message to send to youth, that violence is 
the answer to conflict. The first time I finished HBP, I had a very 
strong reaction to Harry and his friends dropping out of school to, 
essentially, go off to war. There are too many children fighting 
wars in this world. I was disturbed by Harry's professed willingness 
to kill, as well. 

Bookworm:

JKR has not indicated that violence is the answer to all conflict.  
We are not talking about a couple of bullies in the school yard.  
Harry doesn't use violence to stop Dudley's bullying ? he avoids 
Dudley, and he responds verbally.  "So who did you do today, 
Dudders?  I know you did Mark Evans yesterday." (paraphrased)

The last chapter of OoP was titled: "The Second War Begins."  This 
story is about War.  Voldemort wants power.  He wants to control the 
Wizarding World.  How do you stop someone like that *without* the 
use of force?

<<"War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on 
in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who 
gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail.... War is the 
ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or 
resolution can't be agreed upon.">>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

Is there anyone who believes that Voldemort is willing to 
negotiate?  For good reason, Voldemort has been compared to Hitler, 
among other dictators.  He wants absolute power.  He is willing to 
kill those people who oppose him.  He has pronounced one group of 
people, purebloods, as superior than all others and will kill the 
others just because they aren't purebloods.

As far as lucianam's comment that JKR "demolishes centuries of 
religious, ethical and moral debate", I would argue that she is 
highlighting the centuries of debate.  

<<"As [Historian James T.] Johnson notes, in its origins just war 
theory is a synthesis of classical Greco-Roman, as well as 
Christian, values.  If we have to "name names", the founders of just 
war theory are probably the triad of Aristotle, Cicero and 
Augustine." >>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

<<"The just-war tradition consists of a body of *ethical* reflection 
on the justifiable use of force.">>
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/justwar.htm

I was also concerned about Harry's apparent decision to drop out of 
school to go to war.  My reservations aren't about him going to war, 
just in the way that he does it.  I understand his reasoning, but 
think there is still much for Harry to learn.  Also, he will need 
the help of his friends ? that is one of his strengths.  If he 
leaves his friends behind, he will be that much more vulnerable.  

We've known since PS/SS that Harry would have to defeat Voldemort.  
How can he do that without fighting?

Ravenclaw Bookworm








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  1 05:10:35 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 05:10:35 -0000
Subject: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience
In-Reply-To: <dk58u5+as04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk6tcb+fvrv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142368

> > Lucianam:
> > Maybe all Voldemort transfered to Harry in Godric's Hollow was
> > some of his magical power?  
 
> Valky:
> You may have guessed, I'm not buying that, since no objective
> paths of deduction that I have ever seen lead there. If Harry is
> not a Horcrux,I'll need another explanation. <g>

Jen: I rearranged your post Valky, because I wanted to add this 
thought to the mix before moving on. 

I'm still not a Harry horcrux proponent, but also believe something 
more was transferred that night at GH. We find out in COS the one 
power Harry knows for sure Voldemort passed to him was the ability 
to speak Parseltongue. Then in HBP, we discover the ability to speak 
this snake-like language was not just a magical power possessed by 
Slytherin himself, but an ability passed down through the Slytherin 
*bloodline*, a genetic trait rather than merely a magical power, in 
other words. 

Valky is making the case that blood=soul in Alchemy, meaning that 
Parseltongue could have transferred via the soul-piece into Harry. 
While this certainly would explain certain things, it seems to cause 
another large plot-hole (characterization hole?) for me which I'll 
try to explain below.

Valky:
> At the end of PS/SS Dumbledore told Harry that the love the
> resides in his very skin is agony for someone so devoid of
> goodness, hence I always wondered by Voldemort didn't burn up on
> the spot during his ressurrection, he was touched by Harry's
> blood, was he not? By Harry's loving soul? Voldemort counted on
> his dark sinister magic to overcome Harry's protection, and it
> appeared that it had worked. I just wonder if it *was* Voldies
> dark magic that really overcame or was it a fragment of redeemed
> Voldemort, transferred in Harry's blood, that saved him?

Jen: This is the point where Harry having a bit of Voldy's soul 
seems so improbable to me, and yet like you explained, the 
alternative explanation doesn't completely work either! 

1) Dumbledore has been researching Voldemort's horcruxes since COS, 
going on 2 years at the time of the gleam. He's aware Voldemort has 
more than one, he has most likely figured out Voldemort planned to 
make a horcrux at GH with Harry's death because that is the sort of 
thing Voldemort would do, and Dumbledore understands horcruxes at 
this point better than anyone alive (and the same could be said for 
his understanding of Voldemort).

2)  Dumbledore was the one who told Harry about the protection in 
his skin, and he also knows there's more to the story, that he 
himself performed a charm to protect Harry while he lived where his 
mother's blood dwelled. Yet he was not alarmed to hear that 
Voldemort was able to take Harry's blood, did not view it as a 
failure of the protection, no, he did seem to consider the event a 
triumph for Voldemort but one for Harry as well.  

What you would have expected to happen from our canon explanation of 
the blood protection was exactly what Valky described--Voldemort 
would have experienced unbearable pain like in the DOM, or Quirrell 
in PS and perhaps even burned on the spot. Since he didn't, the very 
next thing should have been Dumbledore musing, "what in the world 
went wrong? Voldemort cannot touch Harry, let alone have his blood 
inside of him." But he *doesn't*, he doesn't even consider the 
possibility there's something wrong with that picture. 

This issue isn't like not knowing the Marauders were animagus, or 
making the mistake to think Snape and Sirius could put the past 
behind them. Helping Harry vanquish Voldemort has become the most 
important thing in Dumbledore's life, especially when he's just 
heard the story of Voldemort returning to bodily form.  

I guess like you said above Valky, you would need to know more about 
the events at Godric's Hollow to believe that the power transfer was 
all there was to it. I would also need to hear something more about 
Dumbledore to understand how he could overlook the possibilty that 
Harry had a piece of voldemort's soul in him, especially once 
Dumbledore understood the notion of multiple horcruxes and the most 
unusual fact that Harry received powers from Voldemort. I mean if WE 
can come up with this idea, knowing far less than Dumbleore, how, 
how, how could he have credibly overlooked the possibility? 

I'm really struggling with the possibility JKR might say "well, I 
told you Dumbledore was capable of great mistakes" and somehow that 
will be the only explanation we'll get. I just hope if Harry does 
have a soul piece, there's an event, historical reason, something 
other than just Dumbledore having a this huge, inexplicable gap in 
his problem-solving abilities.

Jen, hoping she explained that well because this is a very slippery 
issue to get a grip on.






From sunnylove0 at aol.com  Tue Nov  1 05:19:28 2005
From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 00:19:28 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] War (Was: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
Message-ID: <14.50e107e4.309854e0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142369

 
In a message dated 10/31/2005 9:03:51 PM Mountain Standard Time,  
rbookworm46 at yahoo.com writes:

The last  chapter of OoP was titled: "The Second War Begins."  This 
story is  about War.  Voldemort wants power.  He wants to control the  
Wizarding World.  How do you stop someone like that *without* the  
use of force?



The last Voldemort war lasted through years of fighting, years of  
resistance.  Even with Dumbledore in OOP, it was a draw.
 
The only truly effective blow we've ever seen against Voldemort was a young  
woman willing to sacrifice herself out of love for her baby son.  Make  love, 
not war, I think.
 
Amber


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ayaneva at aol.com  Tue Nov  1 06:14:18 2005
From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 06:14:18 -0000
Subject: Snape and Harry's Power/Mindlock and Fire/Air/Water: WAS Fire Air and Water
In-Reply-To: <djuqhv+stg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk713q+fq2h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142370

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at h...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the lateness of the reply AyanEva. My son just turned nine! 

Me:
That's OK! I haven't had a chance to answer you properly until now. A
bunch of stupid projects due... *grumbles* I'll be so happy if I never
hear another word about Michelangelo ever again.

>  
> > AyanEva said:
> >
> > Maybe part of point of Snape goading Harry all along was to get a 
> > rise out of Harry and see what exactly he was capable of? 
> 
> 
> Valky:
> Ahhh we agree on that one :D I hated it pre-HBP but have changed my
> mind since, for several reasons, one of which is the fact that Snape
> never once 'rounded on' Neville in HBP, and another is that he spent
> almost his entire page time with Harry in *silence*, even seemingly
> hushing people just to achieve it. That seems to say he found what
he was looking for IMO.
>

Me:
I'm going to return to a question that we've already discussed because
I just thought of something to add to it. If we establish that Snape
first noticed Harry's aura thing at the end of OOTP, and if we assume
that his goading of Harry from that point forward was for the sake of
examination, then that leaves us with the question of, "Why did Snape
goad Harry from before the end of OOTP on back to PS/SS?" We have the
option, once again, of saying that Snape hated The Marauders, thus his
hatred of Harry. Or we have Snape loved Lilly. *holds sides and laughs
hysterically...darn flamingos* Personally, I'm leaving that one out
because, IMO, it's just so OOC for Snape that I just can't imagine it.
 I can't prove that the theory's wrong, but it makes me *cringe*
Anyway, the third obvious option, Snape is jealous of Harry's fame for
doing a whole lot of nothing (at the time of PS/SS), whereas he gets
nada for risking his life. 

None of these explanations are enough to explain Snape's dislike of
Harry. Save for the unlikely, IMO, PINK FLAMINGOS.<---I think that's
the right acronym... In light of this, I begin to wonder about the
blood protection/ancient magic stuff. It's powerful enough to rebound
an AK, powerful enough to protect Harry at the Dursleys, it should be
powerful enough for someone properly attuned to detect it. I should
think, anyway. Which rounds us back to Snape and his theoretical
ability to sense Harry's aura later on at the end of OOTP and
throughout HBP. If he can pick up on stuff at this later stage,
shouldn't he be able to pick up something as strong as blood magic
whatever? Does this, in any way, fit into the reasoning behind his
extreme dislike for Harry? I just can't believe that whatever Lilly
did, as powerful as it was, wouldn't leave an energy/aura signature of
some sort. Darnit. Now, I'm going to have to go back through all of
the books and re-evaluate Snape's behavior towards Harry. What are
your thoughts on the matter?
 
 
> 
> > >Valky:
 Together it makes the simple analogy the power is
> *blood* and *blood* is the power. So does it finally explain why JKR
> hinted so strongly the Vampire!Snape ? The analogy can carry over to-
> Snape thirsts for this power like a Vampire thirsts for blood, could
> it not? 

Me:
Ooooh! Good one! This next bit of sugary nonsense is in line with your
analogy above, but also with regard to a)the pensieve memory of the
hook-nosed man screaming at the lady and b)the revelation of Eileen
Prince/Tobias Snape. It's just another possibility of the Harry-aura
idea, but it might not be completely incompatible with our original
idea, either. If blood=power and Harry's power= his mother's love,
protection, and self-sacrifice, we could go all saccharine and say
that Snape thirsts for Harry's power, ie: a mother's love, etc. And
that falls in line with all of that "our new celebrity" "I hate you
because everyone loves you" stuff. Snape doesn't hate Harry, he hates
was Harry has, which isn't necessarily raw power, but a mother's
protection that Snape's mother couldn't give him. And perhaps, he laid
aside his jealously (mostly) in favor of studying something that he
can't comprehend. It's like watching "Fabulous Life of..." on VH1. If
you don't know, it's a show that has episodes of "Fabulous Life of
Snoop Dog" or "Fabulous Life of Hollywood Royalty." Stuff like that.
In other words, they show you people who have a bunch of money that
you'll never have. Anyway, if you're like me and watch the show every
so often, you end up hating the rich/famous person because they have
what you don't, but at the same time you're intrigued by what you
can't have, so you have to watch. Make any sense? Bwah. I got all
psychoanalytical again. 

I just go to the end of your response and the "Snape Wants A Mommy"
theory could tie in with the "Make Snape Teary" effort.



> 
> Valky:
> <snip>
 So therefore during the battle between them at the end of HBP, the
> personalness between Harry and Snape had almost consumed Harry's sense
> pf perspective, narrowing his field of focus <snip>

Me:
Ah! I get it now. That actually makes a great deal of sense, both in
terms of emotional development and as its own plot device.

> > 
> > >Valky:
> > ><snip>
> All I mean here is that starting with your theory that Harry's aura
> got loud after he pushed Voldemort out of his body (which I really
> like btw), we assume that it is fuelled by emotions, so when Harry is
> feeling emotional it is louder. 
<snip>


Me:
Gotcha! That could pose a minor problem when he fights Ol' Moldy Voldy
Head... 


> 
>> Valky:
> but if they are to work
> together hormoniously Harry will have to hit Snapes deepest emotional
> nerve and get Snape teary.. Can you see it happening? (methinks not
> without Lily!) now if this happens, if Harry gets hot under the collar
<snip>
> element from Harry (Harry will look smart to Snape!) and it will
> return Snapes Air to balance! Voila Snape and Harry have just worked
> together harmoniously!

Me:
That's much clearer now, thanks! Someone could totally use that in a
SS/HP fanfic! Snape? Teary? Now, *that* I'd *love* to see! And I hope
it's *not* about Lily! *tries to wipe the chedder off of her hand* :-D


AyanEva






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 07:37:59 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:37:59 -0000
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - Unfounded Speculation
Message-ID: <dk760n+10dcl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142371

For a long time now I've been thinking that somehow the final battle
and the final solution to Voldemort would revolve around that Veiled
Arch of Death in the Dept of Mysteries. But I could never work out HOW
they would manage to get into the Dept of Mysteries for the final battle. 

Now, farfetched as it may seem, I think I have found a way.

Notice that the only Horcrux that has been destroyed by Dumbledore is
the Slytherin/Gaunt Ring. Also, note that Dumbledore has a 'dead'
hand. And where do you wear a ring if not on your hand?

We also have speculated that we don't really have to destroy the
Horcrux soul-pieces, we only have to release them from their new
'bodies'. That is, Harry doesn't have to kill the soul pieces, only
release them. But how? And how can we release the soul-pieces in a way
that assures that they don't rejoin their master in the 'home-body'?

Note: in previous discussion, I didn't really care if the soul-pieces
rejoined Voldemort or not; now I'm thinking it might not be such a
good idea.

So, here is a scenario that I envision. Starting with Dumbledore and
his 'dead' hand. Dumbledore manages to get past all the enchantments
that are guarding the Slytherin/Gaunt Ring. Now he has to release its
soul-piece but how? Simply he takes it to the Dept of Mysteries, puts
the ring on his hand, and sticks it thought the Veiled Archway. That
releases the soul-piece into the 'great beyond' in a way that prevents
it from ever returning to Voldemort. Dead Ring - Dead Hand; it's gone
and gone for good.

Now Harry will have to find a way to extract the souls from the
remaining Horcruxes, and that gives us an excuse for the final battle
to take place in the Death Chamber in the Dept of Mysteries. Harry has
taken the Horcruxes there to destroy them, and Voldemort is bent on
stopping Harry and ending the troublesome boy's life forever.

They stuggle, they fight, they duel; it's just a question of which one
goes through the Veil first. Ultimately, Harry forces Voldemort
through, perhaps with the help of a friend; maybe Neville. In the
final moment Harry is defeated, Voldemort is about to kill him, and
Neville, bodily or by spell, sends Voldemort through the Veil. 

I could live with that.

I guess part of the reason for forcing the story in this direction is
that I think the Veiled Archway is just TOO GREAT a plot point to
abondon. 

Who knows?

Steve/bboyminn







From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 08:31:52 2005
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:31:52 -0000
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - Unfounded Speculation
In-Reply-To: <dk760n+10dcl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk795o+7aj8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142372

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
> For a long time now I've been thinking that somehow the final 
battle
> and the final solution to Voldemort would revolve around that 
Veiled
> Arch of Death in the Dept of Mysteries. But I could never work out 
HOW
> they would manage to get into the Dept of Mysteries for the final 
battle.



Aww come on....would be so easy to toss a horcrux into the 
veil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
> 
> Now, farfetched as it may seem, I think I have found a way.
> 
> Notice that the only Horcrux that has been destroyed by Dumbledore 
is
> the Slytherin/Gaunt Ring. Also, note that Dumbledore has a 'dead'
> hand. And where do you wear a ring if not on your hand?

(how dare you ask) *snicker*
> 
> We also have speculated that we don't really have to destroy the
> Horcrux soul-pieces, we only have to release them from their new
> 'bodies'. That is, Harry doesn't have to kill the soul pieces, only
> release them. But how? And how can we release the soul-pieces in a 
way
> that assures that they don't rejoin their master in the 'home-
body'?
> 


I know you'd hate to admit...but can't you imagine harry sticking 
part of his body(head) through the veil!? I can...Luna can...

okay....

Now do you want to hear something comepletely horrible...

Snape may have really had an inclination to the horcrux theory..It 
would make sense...

I think Snape disagreed with DD regarding whether or not Harry was a 
horcrux..(why else the scenario at the end of HBP...where snape 
would not kill Harry!)

I really do loathe Snape..but I think he may have something...

Snape hates the veil...in all probability...Snape probably thinks 
that Sirius is not dead...

I wonder if DD did not stick HIS HAND through the veil.(uh-oh...do 
we need to go back and look at OOP).and I also wonder if Snape did 
not, "stopper death"...after DD may have stuck his hand through..(no 
snape as savior here....he may have did something less)

> Note: in previous discussion, I didn't really care if the soul-
pieces rejoined Voldemort or not; now I'm thinking it might not be 
such a good idea.

On the other "side" we know that all the folk voldie killed..are 
waiting from him...How do we know??? because we know that harry and 
luna heard voices on the other side of the veil. We also know that 
the dead can help due to the prior incantem..

As we know DD before the "dead hand" scenario...who saved dd after 
that...simply Snape...(DD left us loads of clues...)

Why else would McGonnagal ask Harry what happened..

Everyone trusted DD except for Harry....

McGonnagal, Hagrid, etc...all of them trusts Harry more than 
DD...due to DD's insistance!!

(why else would Harry give the answer he did?!?!?!)

Doddie






From mcandrew at bigpond.com  Tue Nov  1 12:53:00 2005
From: mcandrew at bigpond.com (Little lama)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:53:00 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <dk5jvc+g91c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk7ofc+fa0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142373

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> 
wrote:
>
>  Potioncat, earlier:
> > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, <snip> Snape, 
Pettigrew and Narcissa all seem 
> > familiar with the area. Yet it was Bella who was supposed to be 
part 
> > of young Severus's gang. <  >> 
> Potioncat, now:
> Lots of you have posted on this one. It is a question that 
actually nags at me, although many of you brought up things I hadn't 
thought of.. <snip> Sirius said (GoF?) that Snape belonged to a gang 
of Slytherins, which included the LeStranges,  who almost all became 
DEs. <snip> Friends or not, if Spinner's End was Snape's childhood 
> home, it would be understandable that he wouldn't invite his 
Slytherin classmates there.
> 
> But, Snape is a DE and so is Bella. They knew each other in school 
and afterwards. We don't know what Snape did in his younger days for 
LV, but perhaps Bella and Snape never had to meet at his 
workplace/home. In fact, maybe Spinner's End wasn't his home or 
workplace in the '80's.


Hi, Lama here.  Just a small point ... I think the 'Lestranges' who 
Sirius was referring to would have to be Rodolphus and his brother 
Rabastan and any other siblings in their family.  Bella wasn't a 
Lestrange during her Hogwarts days, as she hadn't married one of 
them yet - she was Bellatrix Black.  So she was not listed by Sirius 
as one of the Slytherin gang members, and we can't really assume 
that she knew Snape at school.

If the Black Family Tree was chronologically organised, Bellatrix 
was the eldest of three Black sisters, the youngest of whom 
(Narcissa) married Lucius Malfoy, who is himself four(IIRC) years 
older than Snape et al. If Narcissa is about Lucius's age, then 
Bella must be at least 6 years older than Snape. Or if Narcissa is 
around Snape's own age (likely, from Snape's very particular regard 
for her), Bella's lower age limit would have to be at least two 
years older, as there is another sister in between them according to 
the tapestry.

I'm inclined to think Bella is several years older than both Snape 
and Narcissa, so that she might not have even known Snape at 
school.  The only hitch with this is that she later married one of 
the Lestranges, who were part of the gang. But hey, would Bella let 
convention deter her from marrying a younger man? And chances are 
that the Lestrange brother she married (Rodolphus?), at least, was a 
senior gang member when Snape was a junior.

> 
> What I'm wondering is,  how long has she distrusted him? 

Lama: I haven't thought about this much, but I'd say her vehement 
distrust/dislike of Snape probably dated from the moment she 
realised that he had usurped her position as VM's new favourite. 
Probably about 10 minutes after VM escorted her from the MOM 
disaster.


Lama







From elfundeb at gmail.com  Tue Nov  1 13:14:04 2005
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:14:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience
In-Reply-To: <dk6tcb+fvrv@eGroups.com>
References: <dk58u5+as04@eGroups.com> <dk6tcb+fvrv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0511010514m65054b1bj8b47baf0289e187a@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142374

I don't have time right now to address most of Jen's points. I have been
working on Potioncat's assignment:
 To be honest, I skimmed over the Harrycrux threads and the missing
horcrux threads. So I'd like to see a good post about the ideas. You
know, a couple of scolls of parchment...by Monday morning? :-)

Though I've already missed the Monday deadline! When I'm done I'll cover all
of them, but I wanted to comment on this thought now:
 Jen:
I'm really struggling with the possibility JKR might say "well, I
told you Dumbledore was capable of great mistakes" and somehow that
will be the only explanation we'll get. I just hope if Harry does
have a soul piece, there's an event, historical reason, something
other than just Dumbledore having a this huge, inexplicable gap in
his problem-solving abilities.
 Debbie:
I appreciate your dilemma, Jen. Of all the objections that have been raised
to Horcrux!Harry, why Dumbledore didn't tell him is one of the most
significant, because "Well, Dumbledore made a mistake" just doesn't seem
consistent with his thorough consideration of the possibilities.
 I am coming around to the view that Dumbledore very much suspects that the
last Horcrux is Harry, but deliberately withheld that information from him.
Unlike "DD goofed" this explanation is very consistent with Dumbledore's
behavior with regard to Harry. He may not lie to Harry, but he definitely
withholds information that he doesn't think Harry is old enough to handle,
like the Prophecy which he withheld for four years after Harry asked why
Voldemort was after him, because he didn't think Harry was ready for it.
 I know Dumbledore claimed to be telling Harry "everything" at the end of
OOP, but from DD's perspective it is not a *fact* that Harry is a Horcrux;
it is only a theory. Telling Harry that after finding and destroying all of
the other Horcruxes *and* Voldemort, he will likely have to kill himself
isn't information that will help Harry in his quest; in fact it might weaken
his resolve if he knows this is the last thing he will ever do. I think DD
is relying on Harry to recognize what he has to do when the time comes.
Until that time, for Harry to entertain the possibility that he is a Horcrux
is a burden; it will not help him at all in accomplishing his other tasks.
 Debbie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Tue Nov  1 13:23:51 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:23:51 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <dk5jvc+g91c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk7q97+b9ef@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142375

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> 
wrote:
 
> What I'm wondering is,  how long has she distrusted him? Did she 
come 
> out of Azkaban with blanket distrust of the ones who walked free? Is 
> his ability to slither out of "work" giving her pause? Has it just 
been 
> since the DoM disaster?
> 
> But, for whatever reason, both Narcissa and Wormtail know where 
Snape 
> works but Bella doesn't. She doesn't even seem to know that his 
> home/workplace is located in a dodgy Muggle neighborhood. 
> 
> I don't know...something doesn't seem right.

Marianne:

I agree, as one of the other posters on this thread has said, that DEs 
probably all have a healthy distrust of each other because of the type 
of organization they're in, the activities they're involved in and the 
fact that their leader will show no hesitation in killing them for 
their misdeeds. 

However, I also believe that Bella's mistrust of Snape runs deeper 
than garden variety DE maneuvering to stay on Vmort's good side.  She 
has seen many other DEs go to prison, while those on the outside 
apparently did nothing to try to find or aid the weakened Voldemort. 
These actions, or non-actions, are seen by Bella as a betrayal of her 
Master and the beliefs he espouses.  She went into prison as an 
unrepentent DE, and Azkaban has done nothing to jolly her mood.  In 
her view, she and a handful of others have remained steadfast, while 
people like Snape avoided punishment.  

Their discussion in "Spinner's End" also struck me as indicating she's 
had this suspicion of him for a long time, as if she knew of other 
instances during the first war where Snape managed to avoid putting 
himself physically in danger for the cause. I think that if Bella 
could find a way to prove Snape disloyal to Voldemort, she'd jump on 
it in a heartbeat.

I'm not particularly bothered by Bella not knowing where Snape lived.  
She's been out of circulation for so long, this doesn't surprise me 
that she doesn't know his current abode.  He may not have had it until 
he started getting that regular salary from Hogwarts. It's implied 
that Snape is at least on good terms with the Malfoys, so it's quite 
possible they know where he lives, whether or not they approve of it. 
Wormtail knowing the house and living there is an arrangement that I 
felt was VM having his minions keep an eye on each other.

Marianne 






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Tue Nov  1 13:56:59 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:56:59 -0000
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - Unfounded Speculation
In-Reply-To: <dk760n+10dcl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk7s7b+89sh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142376

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
> For a long time now I've been thinking that somehow the final 
battle
> and the final solution to Voldemort would revolve around that 
Veiled
> Arch of Death in the Dept of Mysteries. But I could never work out 
HOW
> they would manage to get into the Dept of Mysteries for the final 
battle. 
> 
> Now, farfetched as it may seem, I think I have found a way.
<snip>

Steve:
> So, here is a scenario that I envision. Starting with Dumbledore 
and
> his 'dead' hand. Dumbledore manages to get past all the 
enchantments
> that are guarding the Slytherin/Gaunt Ring. Now he has to release 
its
> soul-piece but how? Simply he takes it to the Dept of Mysteries, 
puts
> the ring on his hand, and sticks it thought the Veiled Archway. 
That
> releases the soul-piece into the 'great beyond' in a way that 
prevents
> it from ever returning to Voldemort. Dead Ring - Dead Hand; it's 
gone
> and gone for good.


Marianne:

Ummm.  Who gets the honor of putting the locket around their neck 
and sticking their head beyond the veil? Couldn't the actual horcrux 
simply be tossed through the veil?  I guess what I'm asking is if 
you think it's important for the horcrux object to be used as its 
natural appearance dictates while it's pushed beyond the veil, ie., 
the ring must be on a hand, a locket hanging around a neck, a hat 
sitting on top of a head. If not, then perhaps a horcrux hurling 
party could be held and the Trio can toss these objects behind the 
veil to get rid of them.

I wonder if Harry will have to collect the horcruxes and destroy 
them all at the same time, or will he destroy them as he finds them?

Steve: 
> I guess part of the reason for forcing the story in this direction 
is
> that I think the Veiled Archway is just TOO GREAT a plot point to
> abondon. 

Marianne:
Oh, yeah, I'll be surprised if the Veil doesn't play a part in the 
last book.  I thought we'd see it in HBP because I was sure Harry 
would want to try to communicate with Sirius in the belief that his 
voice might have been one of those Harry could hear beyond the veil.

Marianne






From papa at marvels.org  Tue Nov  1 14:55:39 2005
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:55:39 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] War
In-Reply-To: <14.50e107e4.309854e0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42FD96A400021A79@mta12.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142377

Amber wrote:

> The only truly effective blow we've ever seen against Voldemort was a 
> young woman willing to sacrifice herself out of love for her baby 
> son.  Make love, not war, I think.

 
RM: 

Sometimes war is not optional and it requires violent and ugly acts from
moral people. In Harry's case he cannot choose to abstain from war. He might have to kill LV to survive. His own life may be forfeit in doing so to protect the WW and those he loves. If he dies and LV lives the WW is not saved.  These are the cold facts that must be dealt with, pleasant or not. If you live in freedom thank those who fought and died to give you that gift. 

To quote:
* Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
* The most noble fate a man can endure is to place his own mortal body
between his loved home and the war's desolation.
Robert Heinlein







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov  1 15:14:23 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:14:23 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk60b0+3r5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk80of+1m5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142378

Lucianam:
> Yes I know JKR was once a single parent herself, and I know there's 
> a link to the One Parents Families Charity in her website. Well, 
> that's her personal life, not her writing. It doesn't change the 
> fact that she chose to write Harry's legitimate guardian, a single 
> man appointed by his own mother and father, as a slighty deranged, 
> reckless, moody, tragic man, smelling of booze and `a case of 
> arrested development' too. 
> 
> Those characteristics make Sirius clearly unfit as a substitute 
> parent, and they are stressed by Molly's attacks and Hermione's 
> agreement with Molly. I find such a negative portrait of a potential 
> alternative family ? Harry and Sirius ?  in opposition to the 
> perfect family, the Weasleys, to be very unrealistic.  I don't think 
> it was a `bad' thing to do, ethically, but I expected better. Not 
> because of JKR's personal life, but because we're in the XXIst 
> century.


Pippin:
Sirius isn't shown as having those characteristics because he's
single. The Weasleys in OOP are far from an ideal family either --
Molly is so distraught she can't manage even a third year spell, one
of their children has become completely estranged, two others
drop out of school, and Harry feels smothered by Molly's efforts
to make him feel loved and protected.

Maybe Sirius and Harry wouldn't have done very well in a nuclear
family situation, but that's not JKR saying that  single parents 
are no good. Besides Neville, who's already been mentioned, 
there's Hagrid, raised by his father from the age of three.

The deaths of Lily and James remind us that even happy, two-
parent families don't always remain so.

Lucianam: 
> On to more OotP disagreement. 
> 
> Why was it okay to leave Sirius to his own devices, if it was clear 
> even to Harry (a child) that he was depressed?

Pippin:
Sirius wasn't depressed all the time. Harry  has a tendency to disregard 
any evidence that doesn't fit the model in his mind. He draws a straight line
between Sirius's sullen mood in August and his dissolute 
appearance at Christmastime, just as he draws a straight line
between Sirius and Snape's fight at Christmas and Sirius's decision
to go to the MoM. In both cases he's ignoring the floo conferences 
which happen in between and showed Sirius functioning pretty well.

Though Sirius is understandably upset that Snape has stopped
the occlumency lessons, he says he isn't proud
of the way he treated Snape as a kid. That doesn't sound like someone
who is still burned up over their last encounter.

It strikes me that Sirius was always moody even before Azkaban.
In the pensieve scene he's down about having nothing to do as well.
It could be that Dumbledore and Lupin were used to these sort of
mood changes, expected Sirius to rebound, and didn't see them as 
something Sirius needed help with.

I think Sirius was like Harry in that his emotions were very close to the 
surface. That may be 'arrested development' but I think
 this is why Harry liked him so well. They could
relate without the layer of pretence that most adults put between
themselves and children in the name of sheltering them from the
darker side of life and setting a good example. 

 I'd bet Sirius wouldn't be very good at occlumency either.

There may be more to Sirius's problems at Christmas than we
think at the moment. Like Tonks in HBP, Sirius is upset  while
Lupin is absent and there has been a werewolf attack.


I'm pretty sure we haven't got the whole reason why Sirius had
to stay in the house. Alla asked what changed between GoF and
OOP. The obvious answer is that the Death Eaters were reactivated
and Snape went back to Voldemort. Regardless of which side Snape
was really on, he had to convey some genuine information to both
sides. Dumbledore and Snape act as if they know Sirius has been 
specifically targeted -- and maybe they do. 

Lucianam:
> Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
> 
> `But while I was at the Dursleys',' interrupted Harry, his voice 
> growing stronger, `I realised I can't shut myself away or _ or crack 
> up. Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he? And anyway, life's 
> too short 
 look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance 
 it could 
> be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said fiercely, now 
> looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming in the wand-
> light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, 
> and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'
> 
> `Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true 
> godson!' said Dumbledore,  with an approving pat on Harry's back. `I 
> take my hat off to you _ or I would, if I were not afraid of 
> showering you in spiders.
> (from Chapter 2, `Horace Slughorn')
> 
> That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
> short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in the 
> series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral 
> debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As many 
> as you can!  

Pippin:
When I was a child I was given Samson in the temple as a moral
example, so while this may be  controversial, it's hardly
anything new. Nor did I get the impression my teachers were 
trying to tell me that indiscriminate killing was okay.  

The context for Harry's remarks is the attacks on 
Emmeline Vance and Amelia Bones. Harry is talking about what he 
would do if he was trapped by a death squad and about to be 
executed, not what he would do if he had the upper hand and the 
Death Eaters were at his mercy. This difference is emphasized in  
the tower scene, where despite appearances, Dumbledore doesn't 
regard himself as at the mercy of the DE's. Not only doesn't he try to 
take them with him,   he freezes Harry to keep him from doing so.

Lucianam:
> `I see,' said Dumbledore eventually, peering at Harry over the top 
> of his half-moon spectacles and giving Harry the usual sensation 
> that he was being X-rated. `And you feel that you have exerted your 
> very best efforts in this matter, do you? That you have exercised 
> all of your considerable ingenuity? That you have left no depth of 
> cunning umplumbed in your quest to retrieve the memory?'
> 
> When was the last time I read about, or watched a movie about a wise 
> and righteous mentor telling his young apprentice to leave `no depth 
> of cunning umplumbed' to get something?  I can't remember! Yoda and 
> Obi Wan-Kenobi never told Luke anything even remotely similar.

Pippin:
Unlike Lucas, Rowling wants us to trust Harry's moral judgement. 
Dumbledore certainly does. He doesn't need to insult Harry by telling him 
not to do anything Dumbledore wouldn't do (and Dumbledore's cunning 
is considerable.) He believes that Harry wouldn't and in any case, he's 
already told Harry that force or coercion would be 
counterproductive.

It wasn't his moral scruples that were keeping Harry from trying to get 
the memory, it was that he was devoting his considerable ingenuity 
and depth of cunning to spying on Draco instead, something that
Dumbledore had good reason to fear would lead to disaster for both
of them. 

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov  1 15:45:17 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:45:17 -0000
Subject: Eeevil!Snape was Snape in Shrieking Shack
In-Reply-To: <dk43hh+7rgv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk82id+9rve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142379

> > Pippin:
> > That's the best argument I've heard against Eeevil!Snape. It takes 
> > all the mystery JKR has built up around this 'gift of a character' 
> > and  collapses it like a house of cards. 
> 
> You don't think the mystery isn't going to collapse as a mystery at 
> the end of the series anyways? :)

Pippin;
I expect it to be resolved. When we get to the heart of the labyrinth,
(or Harry is dragged there kicking and screaming) we will no doubt find 
that we could have followed a much more direct route if we'd paid
attention to the cunningly hidden clues that will reveal themselves once
we know what we are looking for.

That is not the same as reaching the heart of the maze and finding
out that the most direct route was also the most obvious one and
we didn't need clues at all.

Nora:
> No, I must object to the characterization of evil in 'these kinds of 
> stories'.  Firstly, because I'm not so confident about the generic 
> classification we're ultimately going to settle on, and how much or 
> little JKR is straying from an abstracted paradigm. 

Pippin:
I mean the kind of stories in which there's an explict conflict between
good and evil, and evil is represented by  a Dark Lord who dresses
his followers in identical fashion and hides their faces as a metaphor
for the way in which evil suppresses individuality. Maybe JKR means
to turn this  convention on its head somehow, but I don't see any
sign of that so far.

Voldemort offers all kinds of blandishments to his followers, but
the only thing he can really give them is the power to do evil and
the encouragement to shut down their compassion and remorse.
We're told that Harry is rare and unusual in not
wanting that so it wouldn't  be a huge revelation to learn
that  Snape  did want it. Hardly worth hiding for five books, IMO.

We are presented with any number of reasons for people to turn against 
Dumbledore, or to have a change of heart and return to the good side, but 
they aren't made into a mystery. Meanwhile, the  Snape mystery that
was occupying us for five books and was explicitly raised in the first
one-- how can Snape be on Dumbledore's side if he hates Harry so much
 -- becomes irrelevant if Snape was never on Dumbledore's side at all,
or is there no longer. Phoenixgod, who was on the opposite side of
this debate from me, now finds it irrelevant also, and as far as I
understood, you weren't disagreeing with this, but suggesting out that
Rowling might want us to become interested in Snape for other reasons.

Eevil!Snape could become interesting and thematically relevant, but so 
far Rowling hasn't given us any hints about how that could happen, IMO,
whereas there are a number of hints that Harry's conclusions about
Eevil!Snape are in error.  


Pippin






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 16:54:19 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:54:19 -0000
Subject: Eeevil!Snape was Snape in Shrieking Shack
In-Reply-To: <dk82id+9rve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk86jr+o3bs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142380

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

<snip>

> Eevil!Snape could become interesting and thematically relevant, but 
> so far Rowling hasn't given us any hints about how that could 
> happen, IMO, whereas there are a number of hints that Harry's 
> conclusions about Eevil!Snape are in error.  

What about all the hints of resentment, and the theme of obsession with 
the past and practically Nietzschean _ressentiment_?  It's certainly 
been foreshadowed that Snape has something of a hard time dealing with 
some of Dumbledore's decisions, but he manages to keep a lid on them 
(to varying degrees).  Then very thematically relevant becomes how one 
*deals* with lingering pain and anger and grudges.  If we go with the 
Harry in temptation theme, then Snape could be a powerful 
counterexample--how *not* to deal.  This could operate even if Snape is 
genuinely evil, in that Harry needs not to be caught up in his anger 
and resentment and let it govern his actions.

IIRC, you like a scenario where Harry finds out that Snape 
is 'innocent' (or at least not as culpable as Harry thinks), and then 
Harry has to deal with this shocking knowledge.  I can think of a 
scenario as also possible wherein Harry catches up with Snape who is 
indeed guilty, but Harry needs not to kill him/get caught up in dealing 
with him, but go on to deal with other things.  This is more 
immediately personal and thus harder than dealing with Wormtail, and 
the reasons for the actions of the eeeevil party are of considerable 
interest in both cases.  I can't see how this would be thematically 
irrelevant.  Not what's been hinted at in some parts of the hints, but 
there are those other ones which shouldn't be ignored.

-Nora wouldn't bet on it, but holds it eminently open as both possible 
and interesting







From sunnylove0 at aol.com  Tue Nov  1 17:30:06 2005
From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:30:06 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] War
Message-ID: <fe.1fc11ae3.3099001e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142381

I don't mean that Harry won't have to blast a few DE's into pieces if it's  
necessary.
 
I'm just saying to hit LV where he is weak.  LV knows all about  war.
 
And I really don't this to end with PTSD!Harry.  I'd rather he died  before 
that.
 
Excellent quotes, though. (haven't read RH in a while)
 
Amber


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sunnylove0 at aol.com  Tue Nov  1 17:35:58 2005
From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:35:58 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] War
Message-ID: <212.d099be8.3099017e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142382

 
In a message dated 11/1/2005 8:09:07 AM Mountain Standard Time,  
papa at marvels.org writes:

Sometimes war is not optional and it requires violent and ugly acts  from
moral people. In Harry's case he cannot choose to abstain from war. He  might 
have to kill LV to survive. His own life may be forfeit in doing so to  
protect the WW and those he loves. If he dies and LV lives the WW is not  saved.  
These are the cold facts that must be dealt with, pleasant or  not. If you live 
in freedom thank those who fought and died to give you that  gift. 



Also seeing as Harry has shown he is nearly incapable of killing...(Draco,  
Sirius, Pettigrew) I'm wondering if he can use an AK on Voldemort. Or even 
Snape  if it comes to it.
 
And I do thank them.  Every day.
 
Amber


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 20:00:17 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Sirius' situation
In-Reply-To: <dk6kog+bk8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051101200017.51220.qmail@web34901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142383

> Alla: <snip>
> Sirius' safety is important? Sure, it is, but we do NOT know for sure that every DE knows about his animagus form,otherwise he could have been hunted down after he escaped from Azkaban and was on the Islands (or in whatever place he was hiding). He could have gone on the missions as Padfoot, any kind of mission, IMO.

Elyse: 
And even if all the DE's did know his Animagus form, they could hardly shoot him on the street. <SNIP>I think his dog disguise would have been a better used to spy on people, 
maybe better than Snape, since people aren't fussed what they say around a stray dog.


CH3ed: 
I think the DEs didn't know Sirius was an animagus until after the graveyard scene in GoF when they were reunited with LV. LV would have learned of it from Wormtail after he escaped at the end of PoA. So Sirius was quite safe getting around in his animagus form in PoA and GoF.

I think also that it was Harry who learned the identities of some of the DE's from Sirius when HRH visited Sirius in GoF at the cave above Hogsmead. I don't think it would be that hard for the DE's to kill a dog in the open, though. If  muggles see that the DE could just modify their memory, perhaps, but I don't know that the DE's would really even bother with that. I don't think they are a bunch that care much about image. 

 

I agree with both Alla and Elyse on the rest of their posts on the subject, though. There are things that could have been done to ease Sirius' situation. So DD's weak point was indeed that he was too left brain oriented... too intelligent that he tended to neglect the emotions of those around him (or maybe he didn't neglect that but was wrongly expecting them to be able to always put reason before their own feelings). 

CH3ed



		





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  1 20:42:01 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:42:01 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore knows? (Re: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0511010514m65054b1bj8b47baf0289e187a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dk8jup+6077@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142384

Debbie:
> I don't have time right now to address most of Jen's points. I
> have been working on Potioncat's assignment....Though I've already
> missed the Monday deadline! 

Jen: Uh-oh, detention for you!;) I'll be glad to see a summary of 
all the many horcrux debates so far, as I've followed them and still 
can't make up my mind.

>  Debbie:
> I appreciate your dilemma, Jen. Of all the objections that have
> been raised to Horcrux!Harry, why Dumbledore didn't tell him is
> one of the most significant, because "Well, Dumbledore made a
> mistake" just doesn't seem consistent with his thorough
> consideration of the possibilities. I am coming around to the view
> that Dumbledore very much suspects that the last Horcrux is Harry,
> but deliberately withheld that information from him. Unlike "DD
> goofed" this explanation is very consistent with Dumbledore's
> behavior with regard to Harry. He may not lie to Harry, but he
> definitely withholds information....

Jen: Except he would be guilty of an outright lie in this case, 
telling Harry he believed the last horcrux was Nagini. He *is* the 
master of witholding information, and if he suspected Harry was a 
horcrux, I believe he would have evaded the question as he did with 
the ring story. Instead he told an elaborate reason why he believed 
it to be Nagini, even going into detail about living things acting 
as horcruxes (ding, ding, ding! Another tip-off for Dumbledore to 
consider Harry) and how Voldemort has so much control over her.

Another possibility I'm considering is denial on Dumbledore's part. 
He talked a good game about the nameless, faceless creatures who 
might die if he allowed his personal feelings for Harry to 
intervene, but I could live with a Dumbledore who could not get past 
his love for Harry :). Not exactly a heinous flaw for a man to have, 
eh? JKR said "immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional 
mistakes" and that "Dumbledore exemplifies this". If his wisdom did 
indeed isolate him as JKR said, could Harry have been the one crack 
in his armor, built up to protect others rather than himself? Even 
with all the resolve in the world, could his feelings for Harry have 
kept him skirting around the issue of Harry as a horcux, never quite 
allowing that possibility to surface?

Debbie:
> Telling Harry that after finding and destroying all of the other
> Horcruxes *and* Voldemort, he will likely have to kill himself
> isn't information that will help Harry in his quest; in fact it
> might weaken his resolve if he knows this is the last thing he
> will ever do. I think DDis relying on Harry to recognize what he
> has to do when the time comes.Until that time, for Harry to 
> entertain the possibility that he is a Horcrux is a burden; it
> will not help him at all in accomplishing his other tasks.

Jen: My thought is Harry would be almost relieved to know he is a 
horcrux, one less to worry about finding, you know?  He doesn't fear 
dying, understands the value of being like James and Lily and all 
the others who believe defeating Voldemort is a cause worth fighting 
and dying for. I *could* see Harry detaching himself from his 
friends if he found that out, something Dumbledore has always 
discouraged (perhaps because of his own mistakes in that area?). So 
that could be a reason for Dumbledore to withold, except that takes 
us back to the story about Nagini. *Sigh*. Circular.

Jen






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 20:51:26 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:51:26 -0000
Subject: Possessing the possessor, not Horcrux!Harry (Was: Speculating on Voldemort's con
In-Reply-To: <dk4rtd+eiud@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk8kge+h6jm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142385

Lucianam wrote:
<snip>
> Well, the way I see it, things like a conscience, morals, fair 
> judgment, a sense of compassion, etc., they'd all fall into 
> the 'soul' category, wouldn't them? Rather than into 'mind' (I'm 
> using the 'body, mind and soul' idea here).
> 
> So yes, I guess it's possible Voldemort's conscience has been 
> mutilated too, along with the rest of his soul. I think he no longer 
> has anything that resembles a conscience.  Only we haven't had any 
> indication that Voldemort's soul has been neatly split into 
> specific, identifiable parts as a conscience would be (for example, 
> his conscience going into the ring, his compassion going into the 
> diary, his morals into Nagini, etc). I suppose all these good 
> qualities are mixed together and he gradually lost them as he'd grew 
> more and more evil - or, as JKR put it, less and less human. 
> 
> About a piece of Voldemort's soul having been 'inserted' in Harry 
> that night in GH - well, that'd be the Harry is a horcrux theory, 
> right? (or Harry's scar is a horcrux, I'm not sure)
><snip>
> That would mean, if ever that bit of soul re-enters Voldemort's 
> body, Voldemort would be forced to, in a sense, to see things from 
> Harry's POV also. Maybe even be able to feel things from Harry's POV?
> 
> I wonder if there's a way of getting that bit of soul off Harry 
> without killing him - if he is a horcrux, he'll have to be 
> destroyed. 
> 
> Well, anyway it's not a sure thing there's a bit of Voldemort's 
> soul in Harry (though I like that theory). Maybe all Voldemort 
> transfered to Harry in Godric's Hollow was some of his magical 
> power?  
> 
> 
> Lucianam, now seriously (no pun!) worried Harry's gonna snuff it


Carol responds:

I don't think that the soul bits have distinctive properties.
Voldemort's soul is simply his the immmortal part of him that would
pass through the Veil if he died. Encasing pieces of his soul in
Horcruxes prevents that from happening even if the mortal portion of
him--his body--is destroyed. (I'm oversimplifying, I realize, but the
whole point of a Horcrux is earthly immortality as opposed to
afterlife beyond the Veil.)

I'm one of those who believes that you can't create a Horcrux
accidentally. It requires a complex spell to encase a soul portion in
a (preferably) solid object--certainly not a human body subject to
death and putrification. (The diary, originally created for another
purpose, is an exception, as is Nagini, if she's a Horcrux, but I
don't want to discuss that here.)

I see absolutely no reason why Harry should be a Horcrux, and
consequently, no reason for Harry to sacrifice himself to save the WW.
All he needs is some way to use the power of Love to destroy
Voldemort. The Prophecy suggests that Voldemort himself has given
Harry the power to vanquish him. It does not suggest that Harry has in
any way *become* Voldemort or that they share a soul.

Your last sentence comes close to providing the alternative reading
that I think best explains what really happened at Godric's Hollow.
It's not Voldemort's damaged soul, or part of it, that was transferred
to Harry. As Dumbledore says in HBP, LV retained that part of himself
in his vaporized state. It's what kept him "alive" until he could
obtain a body to encase his mutilated Selfhood, the primary soul that
kept him "alive" and the memories, powers, and personality that
distinguished him from all other wizards. Nor was it his power
(singular) in the sense of the magical strength that made his
"greatness" possible. He retained that as well, but needed a body in
order to wield it.

What he (apparently) transferred to Harry, as we're told by Dumbledore
in CoS, is some of his *powers* (plural) in the sense of the magical
abilities that Harry now shares with LV (LV has "mark[ed Harry] as his
equal" by accidentally giving him exactly those powers that
differentiate Voldemort from other wizards). Of course, Harry would
have had *some* powers simply by virtue of being a wizard rather than
a Muggle--the ability to perform magic using a wand, for example--and
he seems to have inherited his father's skills at flying and playing
Quidditch. But clearly his ability to speak Parseltongue is not part
of this genetic magical inheritance: that specific power (magical
ability) is acquired from Voldemort--not a part of Voldemort's soul,
which is the immortal part of him that would pass through the Veil
after death, but a part of Voldemort's genetic inheritance from *his*
parents, and, ultimately, from Salazar Slytherin.

What other distinctive powers does Voldemort possess that could have
been passed to Harry at Godric's Hollow? Legilimency, which Harry has
acquired to some degree through the scar connection but seems unable
to control or master, is one possibility. But we haven't seen Harry
deliberately attempting to use Legilimency and I'm not sure that he
can. (Casting a Protego that deflects Snape's Legilimency spell onto
its caster is not Legilimency but something akin to DADA, and willing
Snape to read his mind isn't the same as reading Snape's mind). Maybe
Legilimency will play a part in his defeat of Voldemort, or maybe it
won't. I think it's already played its role; Voldemort is now using
Occlumency against Harry.

But what about the one power that remained to Voldemort after he was
vaporized, the one power he could wield without a wand? Suppose that
Harry has acquired the power of Possession along with the ability to
speak Parseltongue (and perhaps a bit of Legilimency)?

We know that Voldemort can no longer possess Harry, but what if Harry
possesses Voldemort? What better way for the Love Harry supposedly
represents to enter Voldemort's mind, destroying him through the
"ancient magic" he despises? And how fitting for Harry to turn
Voldemort's own powers against him without stooping to casting an
Unforgiveable Curse.

And instead of being a passive instrument of destruction who must
himself be destroyed, Harry can actively wield the power of possession
as no one else in the WW can.

Carol, hoping that this idea provides a viable alternative to Harry
the Horcrux






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 20:54:46 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:54:46 -0000
Subject: Eeevil!Snape was Snape in Shrieking Shack
In-Reply-To: <dk86jr+o3bs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk8kmm+e4r9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142386

 
> Nora: 
> IIRC, you like a scenario where Harry finds out that Snape 
> is 'innocent' (or at least not as culpable as Harry thinks), and 
then 
> Harry has to deal with this shocking knowledge. 

Here is Snape's Song of Innocence:

My mother bore me in the Muggle World
And I am dark, but oh! my soul is white.
As white as snow, although not so cold,
But I am dark as if bereaved of light.

My mother taught me Potions and Dark Arts,
We used to start before the heat of day,
And since I was a lad of many parts
(And most of them unsafe) she used to say: 

"We all are put on earth a little space
That we may learn to bear the beams of love;
Your robes are black; yours is a sullen face
But deep inside you're gentle as a dove. 

And you must learn where your heart to wear, 
To be mysterious and speak in silken voice,
To hone your skills, to hide your love and care
And in cold revenge sometimes rejoice!"

Thus did my mother say, and kissed me;
And thus I say to little cheeky boy:
When this is over and we all are free 
And round the White Tomb like lambs we joy,

I'll shield him from the ills he cannot bear
(While still in mourning over Bumblebee) 
And then I'll stand and stroke his jet-black hair,
And be like him, and he will then love me.

a_svirn







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 21:05:01 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:05:01 -0000
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - The Living and the Dead
In-Reply-To: <dk7s7b+89sh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk8l9t+pgdl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142387

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" <zarleycat at s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...
> wrote:
> >
> > For a long time now I've been thinking that somehow the final 
> > battle ... would revolve around that Veiled Arch of Death in 
> > the Dept of Mysteries. ... for the final battle. 
> > 
> > <snip>
> 
> Steve:
> > .... Starting with Dumbledore and his 'dead' hand. ... the
> > Slytherin/Gaunt Ring. Now he has to release its soul-piece 
> > ... he takes it to the Dept of Mysteries, puts the ring on 
> > his hand, and sticks it thought the Veiled Archway. That
> > releases the soul-piece into the 'great beyond' ...
> 
> 
> Marianne:
> 
> Ummm.  Who gets the honor of putting the locket around their 
> neck and sticking their head beyond the veil? Couldn't the 
> actual horcrux simply be tossed through the veil?  ...
> 
> Marianne
>

bboyminn:

Well, I hadn't worked that part out when I posted, but I've given it
more thought and here is your answer.

Remember in the Dept of Mysteries when they first encounter the Veiled
Archway? Ron walks around it; it's an arch with a curtain in the front
and it's an arch with a curtain in the back. As Hermione points out
there is no 'in there' in there. No matter how you look at it, it's
never more than just an arch and a curtian. 

But, we know that when a living being passes through the Arch, they do
not simply come out on the other side; they pass into the 'great
beyond', into the spiritual realm. So, I speculate that the Veiled
Archway makes a distinction between inanimate objects and living things. 

For example, if Dumbledore had tossed the Ring into the Veil, it would
have simply fallen to the floor on the otherside. True the Ring does
contain a soul-piece, but the Ring itself is not alive. Only living
things can make the connection to the 'great beyond'. Common material
objects, on the other hand, don't make that connection.

So, the only way Dumbledore could make the connection to the spiritual
'great beyond' aspect of the Archway, and thereby release the trapped
soul-piece, was if the Ring passed into the Veil as part of a living
thing. 

Perhaps Dumbledore knew, guess, suspected, hoped that there was a
slight time delay that would give him the opportunity to pass his
living hand into the Veil, drop the Ring, and snatch his hand back
before the 'realm beyond the Veil' claimed him too. This could tie in
nicely with comments about Dumbledore's reactions times and reflexes
not being what they once were. If Dumbledore has been a young man, he
may have been able to respond faster, or being naturally farther from
death as a young man, the Veil would not have been able to do the
damage it did to the old and closer-to-death Dumbledore.

Now if Harry is the last remaining Horcrux, then the only way to make
Voldemort completely mortal is if Harry takes all the material
Horcruxes through the Veil with him. He'll sacrifice himself, by
passing through the Veil with the Horcruxes. 

If Harry is not a Horcrux, then perhaps he will just push Voldemort
through the Veil while Voldemort possesses the Horcruxes. Although,
even if Harry is not a Horcrux, he could sacrifice himself by dragging
Voldemort and his Horcruxes through the Veil with him.

To the central point, only a living thing can access the spritual
realm aspect of the Veiled Archway. To all inanimate objects, it
nothing but a common arch and a curtain; any object thrown in, simply
fall to the floor on the other side. 

HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN!

...or not.

Steve/bboyminn







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 21:35:58 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:35:58 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore knows? (Re: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience)
In-Reply-To: <dk8jup+6077@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk8n3u+e3nj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142388


> Jen wrote: 
> My thought is Harry would be almost relieved to know he is a 
> horcrux, one less to worry about finding, you know?  He doesn't 
fear 
> dying, understands the value of being like James and Lily and all 
> the others who believe defeating Voldemort is a cause worth 
fighting 
> and dying for. I *could* see Harry detaching himself from his 
> friends if he found that out, something Dumbledore has always 
> discouraged (perhaps because of his own mistakes in that area?). So 
> that could be a reason for Dumbledore to withold, except that takes 
> us back to the story about Nagini. *Sigh*. Circular.

It seems to me that Voldemort really was trying to kill Harry at GH. 
So the one way I can see Harry being a Horcrux would be if it somehow 
happened by accident. Supposing Voldemort wanted to make a Horcrux 
that night, and use Harry as the murder. This is all quite consistent 
with V's modus operandi. This would have been his sixth and final 
Horcrux, housing the seventh and final piece of his soul. He would 
have wanted a special object (unknown, might we see it in Book 7?) 
and a special victim (prophecy boy) for the process. He might have 
planned to get it all done right then and done some magic to prepare 
the Horcrux prior to the killing. Then, when the killing went wrong, 
in the resulting magical chaos (new soul bits from killing Harry's 
parents, the horcrux preparation magic, Lily's Love Magic, the AK), 
one or more of the soul bits ended up with Harry (or his scar...)

Under this scenario, Voldemort when he came back would not ralize he 
had made a Horcrux that night. Thinking he was still one short, he 
would want to make one more. Possibly, as DD guesses, Nagini. So DD 
would not be lying about Nagini. Telling Harry he is a Horcrux would 
not mean less Horcrux-seeking for Harry. There would still the the 
four to find and destroy, *and* Harry. SO DUmbledore would not be 
lying, merely omitting a nasty suspicion (or positive knowledge) that 
he has.






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Tue Nov  1 22:20:01 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:20:01 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk60b0+3r5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk8pmh+8tao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142389

>bboyminn:
>(snip) 
.. I've agreed very much with your
>positions and enjoyed reading your opinions. HOWEVER, in this case, 
>I think you are, ...please, no offense intended..., either overly
>...gasp... Politically Correct, or your position is
>hyper-rationalized. (Sorry)

Lucianam:

First, thanks, second, no offense. This kind of questioning never 
has everyone agreeing on everything.

I disagree about my being too rational, I was actually describing my 
emotional responses to the text. Well maybe my explanations were 
hyper-rationalized, but what prompted everything were my gut 
feelings to OotP and HBP.

About Harry's speech to Dumbledore in HBP (the one about killing the 
Death Eaters):
(a lot of people disagreed w/ me on this one!)

>bboyminn:

>(much snipped, sorry for snipping the Churchill quote ? if anyone 
would like to read it's in bboyminn's original post)

>He will fight against all odds against those who are
>bent on killing him, and when they finally do kill him, he will 
>simply not lay down and die, but he will take as many of his enemy 
>down with him as he can.

>You find that immoral, but I find it very inspiring, and I suspect
>many kids are also inspired by Harry's fearless never-give-up
>never-give-in attitude. In fact, I think Harry sounds very much like
>the much admired Windson Churchill.

Lucianam;

Sure it's a war situation. Sure I understand why you (and other 
people who commented in this thread) interpreted Harry's words the 
way you did. But for me, they sounded very different. I still think 
Harry's `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I 
can,' line is horrifying. I don't think he's saying he'll defend 
himself, I think he's saying if he's killed, in exchange he'll kill 
as many enemies as he can. For me, there's a difference. I noticed a 
violent, vindictive, bloddy note that I definitely don't like.

>Bookworm:

(snip snip snip)
>As far as lucianam's comment that JKR "demolishes centuries of
>religious, ethical and moral debate", I would argue that she is
>highlighting the centuries of debate.

Lucianam:

Maybe she's highlighting it in the sense she takes a position, and 
of course she's rising up debate - I'm evidence of it, here I am 
posting!

She takes her position so strongly and leaving no room for questions 
(in her text), and in Harry's and Dumbledore's words there's no 
debate, that's what I meant.  

Funny how in the rest of her books, except for these paragraphs, 
killing is a big, questionable issue, always addressed in a 
practical situstion, not in a dialogue.

>zgirnius:
(snip snip)

>And I think the kids old enough to be reading the series grasp the
>difference between dealing with a Dark Lord, and their own
>schoolyard 'enemies'.

>I recently reread Chapter 24 (Sectumsempra) of HBP, and I think this
>chapter does a great job of illustrating this, in a way. Draco is
>Harry's biggest 'enemy' at school. And Harry is absolutely horrified
>by what he does to Draco. 

Lucianam:

I think the biggest difference is not to whom the violence is aimed 
(child x adult), but if the one who commits it is a child or an 
adult.

The adults are (almost) always purposeful, but the children's acts 
of violence in the series, for example Harry Crucio-ing Bella, the 
Sectumsempra, the curses they cast, seem to always happen because 
they didn't think properly, or were hot-headed. 

That changed in Draco's case, in HBP, when he planned Dumbledore's 
death. He did that in cold-blood. Well, Voldemort was making him do 
it, but still it was something planned. Only in the end he couldn't 
kill Dumbledore, which in this line of thought could mean `he can't 
carry on his plans, he's still a child' or `he can plan like an 
adult, but he's not a murderer'.

Which brings me back to Harry `kill Death Eaters' speech (sorry): 
he's talking about killing a lot of enemies with a lot 
of `fierceness' and he seems very sure of his own words, but will he 
do it? Will he feel so sure? 


>Christina:
(snip)

>Yes, but look at the ultimate "conventional" family in HP- the 
>Dursley's! *shudder* Hermione has two parents, but it seems as 
>though they don't really understand her; while I'm sure they love 
>her, she seems to spend an awful lot of time away from them. Draco 
>Malfoy has a conventional family as well, and we all know how much 
>hugging must go on in *that* household.

Lucianam:

Good point! But concerning Harry's future, we all know he wouldn't 
want to stay with the Dursleys anyway. He dreamed of living with 
Sirius, who offered him a home and was his godfather. So of course 
the change in Sirius's behavior in OotP, plus Mrs. Weasley's 
attacks, affected that dream. 

Harry's real possibility of a home was a single-parent home. The 
Dursleys (or even the Weasleys) never counted, if you're thinking of 
where would Harry live after he graduated from Hogwarts. In OotP, 
that future home gradually is revealed to be an impossible dream, as 
we read page after page of Sirius's character deteriorating. And if 
the descriptions weren't enough, Mrs. Weasley is always there to 
remind us of how bad a parent he would be. Molly is the center of 
the family Harry considers his ideal one, so everything she says 
weights a lot. It was very sad that JKR decided that Harry's chance 
of a family of his own, his godfather, should be so imperfect. 

Lucianam









From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Tue Nov  1 23:33:07 2005
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 18:33:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <20051101233307.89290.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142390

> colebiancardi wrote:
>
> I don't think DD had a lifedebt to Snape, nor do I believe Snape
has
> a lifedebt to DD.  Lifedebts seem to be a very strange nature - it
> isn't just saving the life of someone, it seems to be saving the
life
> of someone at a) great risk to yourself and b) so far, saving
someone
> whom you don't care about at all <eg>  At what point did DD or
Snape
> put themselves in great risk to *save* one another?  We haven't
read
> or heard about it, so I doubt that.  Harry saving Ginny in CoS did
> not result in Ginny owning a lifedebt to Harry.  The only lifedebts
> JKR speaks of is Snape to James and Peter to Harry.
>
> I actually believe that Draco owes Snape a lifedebt now - after the
> UV and all.  If, of course, the UV supercedes lifedebts, as if you
> break the UV, you will die yourself(isn't that at great risk to
> yourself?<big g>).  I wonder if a UV cancels out lifedebts....hmmmm
>
> Luckdragon:
>
> I do not think Snape owes a lifedebt to DD. But if OFH Snape saved
DD. I think he would be at risk if LV found out, and if he is OFH he
would not likely really have feelings for DD, therefore DD may have
owed Snape a lifedebt. I think the idea that a lifedebt is only
created in a situation where the person saves someone he dislikes at
great personal risk is a very interesting idea.


		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Nov  2 00:14:10 2005
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 16:14:10 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Ring and the Hand - The Living and the Dead
In-Reply-To: <dk8l9t+pgdl@eGroups.com>
References: <dk7s7b+89sh@eGroups.com> <dk8l9t+pgdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40511011614x1e115bf3n7a36e73bf45bec21@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142391

On 11/1/05, Steve <bboyminn at yahoo.com> wrote:
...snip...To the central point, only a living thing can access the spritual
realm aspect of the Veiled Archway. To all inanimate objects, it nothing but
a common arch and a curtain; any object thrown in, simply fall to the floor
on the other side.

HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN!

...or not.


Kemper Now:
I'm voting for not, but I have no canon support. I'm guessing Sirius's
clothes are still beyond the veil, worn or otherwise, and not laying on the
other side of Sirius' entrance into the Archway.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  2 02:00:11 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:00:11 -0000
Subject: Life-debt - Does Dumbledore owe Snape?
In-Reply-To: <20051101233307.89290.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dk96jb+2eb6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142392

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase <luckdragon64 at y...> 
wrote:
>
Luckdragon:
> >
> > I do not think Snape owes a lifedebt to DD. But if OFH Snape saved
> DD. I think he would be at risk if LV found out, and if he is OFH he
> would not likely really have feelings for DD, therefore DD may have
> owed Snape a lifedebt. I think the idea that a lifedebt is only
> created in a situation where the person saves someone he dislikes at
> great personal risk is a very interesting idea.

Ceridwen:
And aside from all of that, there is at least one other circumstance 
where a saved life does not owe a life-debt, IMO: when it's the 
person's job to do it.  A healer, for instance, would probably be 
owed a lot of life-debts if he or she has been a healer for very 
long, unless being a professional renders such a debt unnecessary.  
It's his or her job to tend to the injured, sick and dying whether 
they're friend, foe or stranger.  I don't think there's any canon to 
support WW healers taking the Hippocratic Oath, but I would expect 
that they either do take it, or vow something similar.

Snape, IMO, would fall under this category when DD needed help after 
destroying the ring horcrux.  Even if he wasn't the official DADA 
teacher yet, he is probably the most experienced with the Dark Arts 
and their defense at Hogwarts at that moment.  He's subbed for Lupin 
in DADA before, so I expect that his expertise coupled with being an 
employee of the school ready to assist in emergencies, would make it 
part of his job.  Since it was in a professional capacity, then DD 
does not owe him a life-debt.

Ceridwen.






From piki25 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  2 00:49:57 2005
From: piki25 at hotmail.com (piki1902)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:49:57 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's pleas
Message-ID: <dk92fl+v70p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142393

Does anyone think there is any significance to Dumbledore's 
pleas/crying while Harry is making him drink the poison before getting 
the horcrux at the lake?  Especially what he is saying "...don't kill 
them..." 

Piki1902









From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Nov  2 02:12:28 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:12:28 -0000
Subject: On the topic of lifedebts
In-Reply-To: <20051101233307.89290.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dk97ac+f592@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142394

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase <luckdragon64 at y...> wrote:
>
> > colebiancardi wrote:
> >
> > I don't think DD had a lifedebt to Snape, nor do I believe Snape
> has
> > a lifedebt to DD.  Lifedebts seem to be a very strange nature - it
> > isn't just saving the life of someone, it seems to be saving the
> life
> > of someone at a) great risk to yourself and b) so far, saving
> someone
> > whom you don't care about at all <eg>  At what point did DD or
> Snape
> > put themselves in great risk to *save* one another?  We haven't
> read
> > or heard about it, so I doubt that.  Harry saving Ginny in CoS did
> > not result in Ginny owning a lifedebt to Harry.  The only lifedebts
> > JKR speaks of is Snape to James and Peter to Harry.
> >
> > I actually believe that Draco owes Snape a lifedebt now - after the
> > UV and all.  If, of course, the UV supercedes lifedebts, as if you
> > break the UV, you will die yourself(isn't that at great risk to
> > yourself?<big g>).  I wonder if a UV cancels out lifedebts....hmmmm
> >
> > Luckdragon:
> >
> > I do not think Snape owes a lifedebt to DD. But if OFH Snape saved
> DD. I think he would be at risk if LV found out, and if he is OFH he
> would not likely really have feelings for DD, therefore DD may have
> owed Snape a lifedebt. I think the idea that a lifedebt is only
> created in a situation where the person saves someone he dislikes at
> great personal risk is a very interesting idea.
>
colebiancardi:

sorry, listelves - I reposted the original post, because the original
subject line was not included in this post.  I don't even remember
where I posted this idea in the first place!!  Please forgive :)

I stated those 2 conditions because the only lifedebts we are sure
about and know about are Snape's lifedebt to James and Peter's to
Harry.  I think we can safely assume that Snape dislikes(hates,
loathes) James and James disliked(hated, loathed) Snape.  And James,
according to DD, saved Snape's life at great personal risk to himself.  

Harry and Peter.  Well, I think that Harry dislikes Peter, for the
obvious reason - Peter betrayed his parents and his parents died.  And
Harry did place himself in danger, by putting himself in front of
Pettigrew and Lupin's and Sirius's wands - they were about to kill Peter.

In both cases, neither James or Harry were in any danger if they
decided not to do anything about the person.  James could have stayed
behind in Hogwarts and let Snape get hurt or die.  Harry could have
let Lupin & Sirius kill Peter, and he(Harry) would not have been harmed.

So, those are the only two examples we have.  Rowling did state that
Ginny did not owe Harry a lifedebt, even though he saved her life.  I
don't have the exact quote in front of me, but I believe it went
something like since Harry was in danger himself, it didn't count(or
something like that).

It could be that someone you like owes you a lifedebt, but I don't
think it would be as strong as saving someone you really disliked, as
you could just walk away(as your life is not in any danger)

I don't think either Snape or DD owe each other a lifedebt, but that
is just due to the nature of the two characters.  However, I am
curious if Draco owes Snape a lifedebt now.  I wonder if the
Unbreakable Vow nulls that out - Snape could have died, he could have
turned his back on Draco.  But Snape did save Draco.  I really don't
think Snape *likes* Draco all that much - the whole scene on the Tower
where he roughly and shoved Draco out of the way - he grabbed him
after DD fell off the tower.  Just seems if one likes someone, they
wouldn't manhandle them like that.  Or at least that is how I read it.
 I wonder if any of the other posters have any thoughts on Snape,
Draco, Unbreakable Vows and does that mean they null out a lifedebt or
not?

but I am glad someone responded to my post.  I guess it got lost in
the posts.

colebiancardi







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 02:40:12 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:40:12 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6krs+n8be@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk98uc+9667@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142395

zgirnius wrote: 
> <snip> I think JKR did know what she was writing [with regard to
Sirius Black]. And she did have DD address it in that conversation at
the end of OotP, by reminding Harry that Sirius was in danger of his
life if he left 12 GP. Both from DEs and overzealous MoM employees.
The situation for Sirius was not great, but there were few alternatives.
> 
> And I would agree that some characters treated Sirius badly and
exacerbated the situation, for their own reasons. Snape, obviously,
but he really does hate Sirius and I'm sure readers of all ages 
grasped that this was not good behavior on Snape's part. And Molly
Weasley, who was, it seemed to me, acting out of her own motherly 
feelings towards Harry. I did not feel, however, that JKR was
endorsing Molly's behavior. Not only did she have Harry express
negative thoughts about it, but she also had other characters (Lupin,
at least) disagree with her about things. <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree, and I want to add a few comments. But to digress for a
moment, Alla wondered how the situation for Sirius Black had changed
from the end of GoF, when Black was sent to fetch (sorry, I mean
alert!) the "old crowd." First, at the end of GoF, hardly anyone, even
Order members like Snape and Molly Weasley, knew that Black had
returned and was at large in dog form. And Molly still thought that he
was an escaped murderer. If the others in the Order (aside from Lupin)
thought the same thing, Black had an almost impossible task. (Lupin
would have had to explain everything before Black could even
transform.) And the DEs would not have known, either, since Wormtail
had just restored Voldemort to "human" form.

By the first few chapters of OoP, however, Wormtail or Voldemort has
apparently told the DEs about Black's "big disguise." Lucius *and*
Draco Malfoy see the big dog frolicking with Harry on Platform 9 3/4
and know who he is. At the end of OoP, Bellatrix refers to her cousin
as "the Animagus Black." It seems likely that the other Death Eaters
also know Black's secret. He himself says later that his "big disguise
is useless." That being the case, he doesn't have much choice but to
stay at home or risk his life and anger Dumbledore.

Now I'm going to step out on a limb and say that Black's situation is
in large measure his own fault. While others (notably Wormtail and
Dumbledore, and to a lesser degree, Snape with his taunts) play a
role, Black has made the bed that he's lying in. To begin with, he
talked James Potter into making Wormtail the Secret Keeper. After
Godric's Hollow, he took matters into his own hands and went after
Wormtail rather than going to Dumbledore for help and laughed like a
madman when Wormtail killed all the Muggles. After twelve years in
Azkaban, he escaped with the noble intention of murdering his former
friend and behaved in ways that reinforced the perception that he was
a homicidal maniac (sneaking into Hogwarts toand slashing portraits
and bedcurtains). The first sensible thing he does is to fly to some
tropical paradise on Buckbeak, but he forgoes safety and flies to
England to live on rats and hide in caves when he hears that Harry's
scar hurts. In OoP, he's at least living in his own house with
Kreacher and dear old mum for company. And he brings Snape's taunts on
himself with his incivility. In fact, I think bickering with Snape is
one of his few pleasures. In any case, living at 12 GP is his own
decision. He still has Buckbeak. He could fly back to his tropical
paradise at any point. Instead, he chooses to remain, drowning his
sorrows in self-pity and firewhisky (or whatever he's drinking) and
living in the past. At this point, his only hope for a useful life
lies in Wormtail's arrest, or, if he's unwilling to wait for that, a
new life in some other country. Yes, his is a tragically wasted life.
But the responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.

Carol, with apologies for any feelings she may have stepped on in
expressing these opinions







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 02:54:28 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:54:28 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk98uc+9667@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk99p4+mh4b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142396

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> To begin with, he talked James Potter into making Wormtail the 
> Secret Keeper. 

I have to bring this up, although I know it's a point I've flogged 
any number of times:

What is Lily Potter, chopped liver?  Is she some doormat who's going 
to roll over and do something that she's not comfortable with, when 
it involves the life of herself, her husband, and her son?  If you 
really want to throw around blame for this, at minimum, given the 
present state of information as well as our knowledge of the 
character of the persons involved, it has to be spread evenly.  JKR 
hasn't given us much on Lily, but what little she has practically has 
her wearing the pants in the family.

> And he brings Snape's taunts on himself with his incivility. In 
> fact, I think bickering with Snape is one of his few pleasures.

I wouldn't disagree with the last point too much, but I wouldn't 
exactly point to Snapeykins as being a model of civility and 
restraint here, either.

> In any case, living at 12 GP is his own decision. He still has 
> Buckbeak. He could fly back to his tropical paradise at any point. 
> Instead, he chooses to remain, drowning his sorrows in self-pity 
> and firewhisky (or whatever he's drinking) and living in the past. 
> At this point, his only hope for a useful life lies in Wormtail's 
> arrest, or, if he's unwilling to wait for that, a new life in some 
> other country. Yes, his is a tragically wasted life.  But the 
> responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
> to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.

Of course, if Sirius *had* taken off with Buckbeak and headed to a 
tropical isle, I am sure that any number of readers would be 
commenting upon how cowardly and utterly self-centered he is for 
putting his own safety in front of the cause.  He really can't win in 
this situation, can he?

Not that I want to invoke anything too personal onlist, but I try to 
put myself into the shoes of someone overtly suffering from 
depression, which JKR has talked about the Dementors as, someone who 
was stuck in that situation for years...well, I've fought the black 
dog myself, and it's not fun and it's not a case of 
willpower 'snapping' someone out of it, either.  I couldn't imagine 
being somewhere that I couldn't go outside and smell the air and feel 
the sun upon my skin without the shadows of glass in between.  I go 
crazy if I'm stuck in one place for a few days without being able to 
take breaks (done that, too).

Some points here--certainly well taken, and largely snipped.  The 
others--blaming the victim, IMO, with an equally negative answer to 
any assertion.

-Nora notes that her own black dog is, happily, currently far at bay







From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Nov  2 02:57:31 2005
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 21:57:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Life-debt - Does Dumbledore owe Snape?
In-Reply-To: <dk96jb+2eb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051102025732.31077.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142397



Ceridwen:
And aside from all of that, there is at least one other circumstance 
where a saved life does not owe a life-debt, IMO: when it's the 
person's job to do it. A healer, for instance, would probably be 
owed a lot of life-debts if he or she has been a healer for very 
long, unless being a professional renders such a debt unnecessary. 
It's his or her job to tend to the injured, sick and dying whether 
they're friend, foe or stranger. I don't think there's any canon to 
support WW healers taking the Hippocratic Oath, but I would expect 
that they either do take it, or vow something similar.

Snape, IMO, would fall under this category when DD needed help after 
destroying the ring horcrux. Even if he wasn't the official DADA 
teacher yet, he is probably the most experienced with the Dark Arts 
and their defense at Hogwarts at that moment. He's subbed for Lupin 
in DADA before, so I expect that his expertise coupled with being an 
employee of the school ready to assist in emergencies, would make it 
part of his job. Since it was in a professional capacity, then DD 
does not owe him a life-debt.

Ceridwen.
Luckdragon:

The idea of one person saving another while acting in a professional capacity and not incurring lifedebts makes complete sense. I hadn't thought of Snape saving DD as part of his job. 






__________________________________________________
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 celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Nov  2 03:12:46 2005
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:12:46 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <dk7ofc+fa0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk9are+bgei@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142398

> Hi, Lama here.  Just a small point ... I think the 'Lestranges' who 
> Sirius was referring to would have to be Rodolphus and his brother 
> Rabastan and any other siblings in their family.  Bella wasn't a 
> Lestrange during her Hogwarts days, as she hadn't married one of 
> them yet - she was Bellatrix Black.  So she was not listed by Sirius 
> as one of the Slytherin gang members, and we can't really assume 
> that she knew Snape at school.

houyhnhnm quotes:

"...he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to
be Death Eaters."
Sirius held uphis fingers and began ticking off names.
"Rosier and Wilkes--they were both killed by aurors the year before
Voldemort fell.  The LaStranges--they're a married couple--they're in
Azkaban...." (GoF, Scholastic, p. 531)







From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Nov  2 03:13:56 2005
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] On the topic of lifedebts
In-Reply-To: <dk97ac+f592@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051102031356.20435.qmail@web53312.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142399




colebiancardi:

I don't think either Snape or DD owe each other a lifedebt, but that
is just due to the nature of the two characters. However, I am
curious if Draco owes Snape a lifedebt now. I wonder if the
Unbreakable Vow nulls that out - Snape could have died, he could have
turned his back on Draco. But Snape did save Draco. I really don't
think Snape *likes* Draco all that much - the whole scene on the Tower
where he roughly and shoved Draco out of the way - he grabbed him
after DD fell off the tower. Just seems if one likes someone, they
wouldn't manhandle them like that. Or at least that is how I read it.
I wonder if any of the other posters have any thoughts on Snape,
Draco, Unbreakable Vows and does that mean they null out a lifedebt or
not?

but I am glad someone responded to my post. I guess it got lost in
the posts.

Luckdragon:

I really wish there was more to go on on this subject. My thoughts on the UV would be that as it is a binding agreement that must be followed through on and as the agreement was pre-made to prevent Draco's death, then following through on that would not create a Lifedebt, just fullfill the UV. 







Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links










		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Nov  2 03:19:48 2005
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:19:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's pleas
In-Reply-To: <dk92fl+v70p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051102031948.24862.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142400



piki1902 <piki25 at hotmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone think there is any significance to Dumbledore's 
pleas/crying while Harry is making him drink the poison before getting 
the horcrux at the lake? Especially what he is saying "...don't kill 
them..." 

Luckdragon:

I don't think there is any significance to what DD was saying. I think the potion DD drank was meant to place the drinker in a nightmarish state in order to prevent them finishing their task. It had an opposite effect of the mirror of erised in that the potion caused the consumer to see their worst fears.










		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 03:22:25 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:22:25 -0000
Subject: Sirius's situation his fault? WAS: Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk98uc+9667@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk9bdh+kgqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142401

> Carol responds:

<SNIP>
> Now I'm going to step out on a limb and say that Black's situation 
is
> in large measure his own fault. 

Alla:


OK, I am only talking about Sirius being depressed in OOP. According 
to what I have read about depression, according to what I KNOW about 
depression, I think the analogy is spot on, so if you ARE accepting 
that Sirius was being depressed in OOP, how could depression be 
depressed person's fault?

Of course if you are not accepting that Sirius was being depressed, 
then we are talking past each other, I guess. So, I am writing on 
assumption that you agree that Sirius was depressed in OOP, if you 
don't please disregard what I wrote.



Carol:

While others (notably Wormtail and
> Dumbledore, and to a lesser degree, Snape with his taunts) play a
> role, Black has made the bed that he's lying in.

Alla:

I am completely confused. Are you saying that Sirius made a CHOICE 
to be depressed in OOP? That he deliberately lived his life the way 
that lead to his depression?


Carol
<SNIP>
 After twelve years in
> Azkaban, he escaped with the noble intention of murdering his 
former
> friend and behaved in ways that reinforced the perception that he 
was
> a homicidal maniac (sneaking into Hogwarts toand slashing portraits
> and bedcurtains).

Alla:

I think that person who lived twelve years near creatures who sucked 
all happiness out of you  and did not go completely crazy, would be 
more than a  little traumatised right after the escape of that 
place. But I am still not getting how is it Sirius' fault? Are you 
saying that he should have stayed in Azkaban?


Carol:

 The first sensible thing he does is to fly to some
> tropical paradise on Buckbeak, but he forgoes safety and flies to
> England to live on rats and hide in caves when he hears that 
Harry's
> scar hurts. 

Alla:

So, rushing to help his godson, who needs him is wrong? Should have 
he ignored Harry's cry for help then? Would that made Sirius more 
sensible person? Why is it Sirius fault to rush to help  the boy who 
needs him? 




Carol:
<SNIP>
In any case, living at 12 GP is his own
> decision. He still has Buckbeak. He could fly back to his tropical
> paradise at any point. Instead, he chooses to remain, drowning his
> sorrows in self-pity and firewhisky (or whatever he's drinking) and
> living in the past. At this point, his only hope for a useful life
> lies in Wormtail's arrest, or, if he's unwilling to wait for that, 
a
> new life in some other country. Yes, his is a tragically wasted 
life.
> But the responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to 
go
> to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.


Alla:

Sirius CHOOSES to give Grimmauld Place to the Order, true, but 
Sirius does not choose to be useless to the Order. All he wants is 
to fight, to be useful somehow.

The fact that he chose to be a good soldier, to obey Dumbledore's 
orders, to stay close to Harry, does not make his depression his 
fault, IMO. 

JMO,

Alla








From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  2 03:43:30 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:43:30 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius's situation his fault? WAS: Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk9bdh+kgqu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003701c5df5f$9883aa60$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142402

Alla:


OK, I am only talking about Sirius being depressed in OOP. According 
to what I have read about depression, according to what I KNOW about 
depression, I think the analogy is spot on, so if you ARE accepting 
that Sirius was being depressed in OOP, how could depression be 
depressed person's fault?

Of course if you are not accepting that Sirius was being depressed, 
then we are talking past each other, I guess. So, I am writing on 
assumption that you agree that Sirius was depressed in OOP, if you 
don't please disregard what I wrote.


Sherry now:

JKR has said that the dementors represent depression.  I'm sure she means
serious debilitating depression, not oh i lost my favorite ear rings, I'm so
depressed now.  Imagine living with severe depression for 12 years!  And
then, as you are starting to heal being shut away again.  I live in
Washington State, a place with month after month of gloomy sunless skies.
It is documented here that many people suffer from seasonal depression in
the winters, because they don't get enough sunlight and fresh air.  Grimauld
Place has got to be the most unhealthy place Sirius could live.  but he's
there.  He's there for Harry.  I find that noble and honorable, not
something that deserves criticism.  I'd like to think that someone who loved
me would be willing to put themselves into an uncomfortable situation if i
needed them, or that I would do that for them.

Why is it that most Snape defenders always see Sirius as the baddie in the
OOTP argument?  I'm an admitted ESE Snape person and a staunch Sirius
defender, but I think they were both wrong.  Snape pushed Sirius' buttons,
and Sirius allowed them to be pushed.  So, ok, they were both acting more
like a child than Harry, but that doesn't make Sirius any more to blame for
that argument than Snape.  In fact, since it was Sirius' house and it was
dealing with Sirius' god son, perhaps dear Sevvy should have tried to show a
little more respect.  

Sherry




From JLen1777 at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 02:04:40 2005
From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 21:04:40 EST
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - The Living and the Dead
Message-ID: <22d.1e826a.309978b8@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142403

 
bboyminn:
...snip...To the central point, only a living thing can access the  spiritual realm aspect of the Veiled Archway. To all inanimate objects, it  nothing but a common arch and a curtain; any object thrown in, simply fall to  the floor on the other side.

HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN!
...or  not.

Kemper:
I'm voting for not, but I have no canon support. I'm  guessing Sirius's clothes are still beyond the veil, worn or otherwise, and  not laying on the other side of Sirius' entrance into the  Archway.


 
 
Jaimee:
That's true, but Sirius was wearing his clothes.  I think it makes  sense 
that if an inanimate object is thrown through without a person or living  thing 
attached in some way, that it would just fly through the other side as if  
nothing was there.  I not necessarily arguing for or against bboy's idea,  but it 
is interesting, and I think it makes sense that an inanimate object ALONE  
would not go 'beyond the veil.'
 
Jaimee





From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 05:25:26 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:25:26 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk98uc+9667@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk9ik6+r1og@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142404

Carol:
> To begin with, he talked James Potter into making Wormtail the 
> Secret Keeper.

Christina:

To begin with, as Nora said, I would blame James and Lily themselves
at least as much as I would blame Sirius.  And Sirius thought he was
doing the right thing- his idea to switch to Peter as the Secret
Keeper was done for all the right reasons.  It certainly didn't make
Sirius's situation any better; he was still the one that Voldemort
would most likely target first.  Without the ability to give him any
information, Sirius would most likely have been killed (in hindsight,
none of this mattered because Peter was the spy, but I don't see how
we can blame Sirius, James, or Lily for not realizing this).

Carol:
> After Godric's Hollow, he took matters into his own hands and went 
> after Wormtail rather than going to Dumbledore for help

Christina:

Yes.  You've just hit on the #1 thing that bothers me about Sirius.  I
disliked him for a long time before I swayed over to the other side
(I'm a big Sirius fan nowadays), but this still bothers me.  The first
thing that Sirius should have done after he realized what had happened
at Godric's Hollow was go to Dumbledore.  Then somebody should have
rounded up Lupin.  I understand that we can do strange and erratic
things in grief, and that Sirius has always been a leaper (rather than
a looker), but Sirius didn't only condemn himself to over a decade of
misery- he abandoned Lupin and (even worse) Harry.  I've always
believed that Sirius went to find Peter *planning* to kill him (he
tells Hagrid he won't be needing his motorbike anymore)- even if Peter
had been too slow to frame Sirius, Sirius would have ended up spending
time in Azkaban (and without Peter alive, who would believe his
Secret-Keeper Switch story, anyway?).

Carol:
> and laughed like a
> madman when Wormtail killed all the Muggles.

Christina:

Sirius knew he was doomed.  I doubt he could have done anything at
that moment that would have led to his release.  Even Dumbledore
testified that Sirius had been the Secret Keeper.


> Carol:
>
> The first sensible thing he does is to fly to some
> tropical paradise on Buckbeak, but he forgoes safety and flies to
> England to live on rats and hide in caves when he hears that
> Harry's scar hurts.
>
>Alla:
>
>So, rushing to help his godson, who needs him is wrong? Should have
>he ignored Harry's cry for help then? Would that made Sirius more
>sensible person? Why is it Sirius fault to rush to help the boy who
>needs him?

Christina:

Alla, we agree so rarely that I just had to point this one out :)

I think Sirius feels very guilty about abandoning Harry for all of
those years, and tried hard to uphold his godfatherly duties whenever
possible to make up for that.  What kind of man would he be if he had
sat back in the sun while Harry was in such distress?


> Carol:
> Yes, his is a tragically wasted life.
> But the responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
> to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.

Christina:

I'm glad you brought this up, Carol, because it hits on something I've
never understood.  I'm not sure if you are implying that Sirius's
decision to go to the MoM was a bad one or not, but I've seen that
event used to support reckless!Sirius about a million times in the
fandom, and I've never understood why.  I *do* think that Sirius is a
leap-before-you-look kind of guy, but I think he made the right choice
in going to the MoM.  At that point in the story, the number of Death
Eaters skulking around was unknown, but the Order knew that there were
 a significant number (especially considering the breakout at
Azkaban).  Faced with the knowledge that six children had gone off to
engage in a conflict with goodness-knows-how-many Death Eaters, the
members of the Order who were immediately available went to help. 
Without Sirius, only four Order members would have been defending the
kids.  I would think that with the number of Death Eaters on the
loose, an extra set of hands would be seen as a huge advantage
(especially when those hands belonged to somebody with such a hunger
for battle).  Harry's and the other childrens' lives were in grave
danger- who cares if Sirius was caught if it meant saving Harry's
life?  With hindsight, we know that Sirius would not have died if he
had not been at the MoM, but I don't see any reason to believe that he
was targeted specifically during the battle.  Any of the Order members
could have died in the MoM- the fact that Sirius was the one who did
does not support the thought that he shouldn't have been there in the
first place.

Christina







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 06:19:52 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 06:19:52 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk9ik6+r1og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk9lq8+srf2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142405

Carol earlier:
> >
> > The first sensible thing he does is to fly to some tropical
paradise on Buckbeak, but he forgoes safety and flies to England to
live on rats and hide in caves when he hears that Harry's scar hurts.
> >
> >Alla:
> >So, rushing to help his godson, who needs him is wrong? Should have
he ignored Harry's cry for help then? Would that made Sirius more
sensible person? Why is it Sirius fault to rush to help the boy who
needs him?
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Alla, we agree so rarely that I just had to point this one out :)
> 
> I think Sirius feels very guilty about abandoning Harry for all of
those years, and tried hard to uphold his godfatherly duties whenever
possible to make up for that.  What kind of man would he be if he had
sat back in the sun while Harry was in such distress?

Carol responds:
I'm not saying that it wasn't a noble gesture, but even Harry thought
it was the wrong thing to do and felt guilty that he had told Sirius
about his scar. He didn't really help Harry, did he? But my point is
simply that he chose to come to England and endanger himself when he
could have provided advice and moral support without risking capture.
Had he done so, Harry would still have a godfather.
> 
> 
Carol earlier:
> > Yes, his is a tragically wasted life.
> > But the responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to
go to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.
> 
> Christina:
> 
> I'm glad you brought this up, Carol, because it hits on something
I've never understood.  I'm not sure if you are implying that Sirius's
decision to go to the MoM was a bad one or not, but I've seen that
event used to support reckless!Sirius about a million times in the
fandom, and I've never understood why.  I *do* think that Sirius is a
leap-before-you-look kind of guy, but I think he made the right choice
in going to the MoM.  At that point in the story, the number of Death
Eaters skulking around was unknown, but the Order knew that there were
 a significant number (especially considering the breakout at
Azkaban).  Faced with the knowledge that six children had gone off to
engage in a conflict with goodness-knows-how-many Death Eaters, the
members of the Order who were immediately available went to help. 
> Without Sirius, only four Order members would have been defending
the kids.  I would think that with the number of Death Eaters on the
loose, an extra set of hands would be seen as a huge advantage
(especially when those hands belonged to somebody with such a hunger
for battle).  Harry's and the other childrens' lives were in grave
danger- who cares if Sirius was caught if it meant saving Harry's
life?  With hindsight, we know that Sirius would not have died if he
had not been at the MoM, but I don't see any reason to believe that he
was targeted specifically during the battle.  Any of the Order members
could have died in the MoM- the fact that Sirius was the one who did
does not support the thought that he shouldn't have been there in the
> first place.

Carol responds:
I'm not saying that his decision to go to the MoM was a bad one in and
of itslef; just that Snape told him to wait for Dumbledore and had he
done so, he would not have been killed. Also, his own reckless bravado
as he duelled Bellatrix got him into trouble. He wasn't paying
attention to his surroundings or he'd have noticed the veil and
steered clear of it. None of the other Order members was taunting the
person they were duelling. I'm sure that he felt he was doing his duty
and finally getting a chance to help Harry and the Order, but it's
unclear whether his presence made any difference. And given Kreacher's
remark ("Master won't return from the Ministry of Magic," quoted from
memory) it's just possible that the DEs did have a vendetta against
him. At any rate, his particular brand of reckless courage is partly
responsible for his death--much more so than Snape's taunts.

Carol 







From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 07:32:48 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 02:32:48 EST
Subject: Eeevil!Snape was Snape in Shrieking Shack
Message-ID: <54.4feefcd6.3099c5a0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142406

 
Nora wrote:

What  about all the hints of resentment, and the theme of obsession with 
the  past and practically Nietzschean _ressentiment_?  It's certainly 
been  foreshadowed that Snape has something of a hard time dealing with 
some of  Dumbledore's decisions, but he manages to keep a lid on them 
(to varying  degrees).  Then very thematically relevant becomes how one 
*deals*  with lingering pain and anger and grudges.  If we go with the 
Harry  in temptation theme, then Snape could be a powerful 
counterexample--how  *not* to deal.  This could operate even if Snape is 
genuinely evil,  in that Harry needs not to be caught up in his anger 
and resentment and  let it govern his actions.



Julie:
As you note, this can be true if Snape is genuinely evil, but it can
also be true if Snape is conflicted--i.e., a man who has difficulty 
controlling his urges to do mean/bad/evil things, yet manages to
act for the side of Good. The difference is, the second incarnation
is infinitely more interesting and more complex (and more human,
IMO). Evil!Snape just ends up being one-note, no matter what his
motivations (which remain the standard ones--anger, resentment, 
and pain over his perceived mistreatment). But if he can battle  the
anger, resentment and pain that push him toward evil, and come
out on the side of Good, then he becomes a richer, more textured 
character. (Besides, there are plenty of one-note evil characters--
Voldemort, Umbridge, Greyback, Wormtail, Bellatrix, et al--so 
why bother building up so much mystery around Snape if it's 
going to amount to essentially nothing?)
 
And whether he is ultimately Good or Evil, I don't think there is 
any doubt Snape is a powerful counterexample to Harry on how
not to deal. Snape's anger and resentment led him to ally with  evil,
which no doubt tainted his soul and left him seeking a  redemption
that may take his life (literally) to achieve, and still  won't completely
wash away the damage he's done to himself and to others. That's
a pretty miserable existence in itself. And since Snape bears it
with little outward grace, even more reason Harry will learn that  lesson 
well. 
 
Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 07:37:01 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:37:01 -0000
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - The Living and the Dead
In-Reply-To: <700201d40511011614x1e115bf3n7a36e73bf45bec21@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dk9qat+renq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142407

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper <iam.kemper at g...> wrote:
>
> On 11/1/05, Steve <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> ...snip...To the central point, only a living thing can access
> the spritual realm aspect of the Veiled Archway. To all inanimate 
> objects, it nothing but a common arch and a curtain; any object 
> thrown in, simply fall to the floor on the other side.
> 
> HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN!
> 
> ...or not.
> 
> 
> Kemper Now:
> I'm voting for not, but I have no canon support. I'm guessing 
> Sirius's clothes are still beyond the veil, worn or otherwise, 
> and not laying on the other side of Sirius' entrance into the 
> Archway.


bboyminn: 

Well, someone has already answered this for me, so I'll be brief.

The Ring only gets 'beyond the Veil' if it is accompanied by a living
thing, and by extention, Sirius's clothes only get beyond the Veil
because he is wearing them. Throw the Ring through the Veil, it lands
on the floor on the other side. Put the Ring on your finger and put
your hand through, and both hand and ring literally go 'beyond the Veil'.

I suppose Dumbledore could have attached to Ring to a spare Rat, but
spare rats aren't too reliable, so I don't think he would trust that
method.

Again, part of this is based on the idea that JKR just can't leave a
great plot device like the Veiled Archway behind to languish.

Hey, really, it was just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 08:17:22 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:17:22 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Great Black Dog (was:Debatable ethical issues...)
In-Reply-To: <dk99p4+mh4b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dk9smi+r2u6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142408

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> ...edited...
> 
> Of course, if Sirius *had* taken off with Buckbeak and headed to
> a tropical isle, I am sure that any number of readers would be 
> commenting upon how cowardly and utterly self-centered he is for
> putting his own safety in front of the cause.  He really can't 
> win in this situation, can he?
> 
> Not that I want to invoke anything too personal onlist, but I 
> try to put myself into the shoes of someone overtly suffering 
> from depression, ...well, I've fought the black dog myself, and
> it's not fun and it's not a case of willpower 'snapping' someone
> out of it, either.  ... I go crazy if I'm stuck in one place for
> a few days without being able to take breaks (done that, too).
> 
> ...edited..
> 
> -Nora 

bboyminn:

Ah yes, the 'great black dog' has visited me on many occasions too.

The thing people are forgetting though is that there are several kinds
of depression; like situational depression vs bio-chemical depression.

When you are in a depressing situation, depression is exactly the
appropraite response. If Sirius had been happy and jolly all the time,
slapping everyone on the back and making grand toasts, THEN I would
have seriously worried about his sanity. As it was, he was in a
depressing and frustrating situation, and as a result was depressed
and frustrated, which is exactly the appropriate response.

OK, there was a time or two when he was feeling a bit sorry for
himself, but again, that's not all that unexpected.

Notice, he is in much better shape when Harry and others come to stay
for Christmas. The depressingness and the frustration of his situation
are less, and consequently, he is less depressed and frustrated.
That's a pretty good sign that he is responding to the situation
normally and not trapped in a bout of clinical depression. When Harry
and the gang leave after Christmas, Sirius anticipates a more
depressing and frustrating situation ahead, and logically become more
depressed and frustrated. Again, a perfectly normal reaction to the
situation. 

As even I pointed out, Sirius wasn't a prisoner, he could leave
anytime he wanted to, and as much as he may have want to go, he was
well aware that doing so represented a trememdous risk. In a sense,
making a foolish and dangerous move, would do him no good, and more
importantly, it would jeopardize the quality of Harry's future. 

Indeed, I think the reason Sirius remained obediantly at home, was for
Harry. So that he could be a close to Harry as possible and as
available to Harry as possible. He suffered what he endured in the
house of his parents because he wanted to do the best for Harry that
he could, even if, at the moment, that 'best' wasn't very much at all. 
In a sense, to abandon Grimmauld Place would have been to abandon
Harry, and we all know that was never going to happen.

Again, everyone thought the situation was temporary. They knew they
had to endure for now as a sacrifice for relief and vindication that
would come later. I doubt that anyone ever expected Sirius to die so
soon. In everyone's mind, the two of them would be together for many
many years, and as a result, they left those long talks until later.
They put off the deep intimate questions for better times, and as a
result, great opportunities were lost. In a sense, what is lost when a
person dies like this is not so much the person themselves as the
future that might have been.

People can say 'snap out of it', 'buck up', or 'lets talk', but in the
end, when you are in a truly depressing circumstance, being depressed
is exactly the appropraite response. Sorry, I don't find Sirius mood
all that surprising or unusual.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn








From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 06:12:23 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dumbledore's pleas
In-Reply-To: <20051102031948.24862.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20051102061223.18941.qmail@web34904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142409


piki1902 wrote: Does anyone think there is any significance to Dumbledore's pleas/crying while Harry is making him drink the poison before getting the horcrux at the lake? Especially what he is saying "...don't kill them..." 

Luckdragon wrote: I don't think there is any significance to what DD was saying. I think the potion DD drank was meant to place the drinker in a nightmarish state in order to prevent them finishing their task. It had an opposite effect of the mirror of erised in that the potion caused the consumer to see their worst fears.


CH3ed adds: Yep, or the potion caused DD to relive some horrific experiences in his or the potion-brewer's past. I note that even when DD was suffering immensely (DD wouldn't moan for any minor aches and pains) he was still asking to be killed or hurt in the place of others. That is a big contradiction to Harry's interpretation of DD's plea to Snape on the Tower. Harry thinks DD pled for mercy for his own life, while I suspect he was pleaing for Snape to save Malfoy (from becoming a murderer or be murdered by LV or DE's) and Harry and the rest of the students (from the DE's) and Snape himself (from the UV) by killing DD.

CH3ed






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 06:47:30 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Possessing the possessor, not Horcrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <dk8kge+h6jm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051102064730.67646.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142410

carol wrote:  "But what about the one power that remained to Voldemort after he was vaporized, the one power he could wield without a wand? Suppose that Harry has acquired the power of Possession along with the ability to speak Parseltongue (and perhaps a bit of Legilimency)?

"We know that Voldemort can no longer possess Harry, but what if Harry possesses Voldemort? What better way for the Love Harry supposedly represents to enter Voldemort's mind, destroying him through the "ancient magic" he despises? And how fitting for Harry to turn Voldemort's own powers against him without stooping to casting an Unforgiveable Curse.

"And instead of being a passive instrument of destruction who must
himself be destroyed, Harry can actively wield the power of possession as no one else in the WW can.

Carol, hoping that this idea provides a viable alternative to Harry
the Horcrux."



CH3ed: Viable is an understatement!! I like this theory a lot. A lot more than the Harry is a Horcrux theory. 

 

If LV can possess Harry then it is only logical that the reverse is possible.  LV is probably agreeing with Carol in employing occlumency against Harry when he saw that Harry could penetrated his mind without being noticed (until the attack on Arthur Weasley) and then his failed possession of Harry at the Ministry at the end of OotP should have told him that there is a power in Harry that LV couldn't withstand. That would also support DD's idea that LV's GH attack and scarring of Harry equipped Harry with the mean to defeat LV. From the plot so far it seems clear that Harry must use his power to love to defeat the loveless LV in the end, but I couldn't work out how because I think LV is a sociopath. Love and compassion just aren't in his vocabulary... so I can't see Harry causing LV to experience love in any passive way (I mean, if DD couldn't then Harry haven't got a chance in this department). So having Harry force love into LV via possession is quite promising... IMHO.

 

I'd love it if someone mention this theory to JKR while a camera in trained on her face so we can see her reaction. ;O) 

CH3ed





From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Wed Nov  2 07:41:18 2005
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:41:18 -0000
Subject: Crowded contents of Book 7 and Horcruces
Message-ID: <dk9qiu+7slg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142411

I must assume, sorrowfully, that unless Book 7 is like a wizarding
building - bigger inside than out - there will be untied-up loose
ends. Can we ever know the truth about how a scar shaped like the
London Underground arrived on the knee of a respectable, deceased
wizard? Oh well. But even the necessary plot lines are worryingly
numerous. A lot must be done, a lot has got to happen, and Harry will
need help, good luck and to be in the right place at the right time to
track down the missing Horcruces. In a word, he must multitask.

What place? We know that GG's sword and (Sorting) Hat are safe,
unHorcruxed and protected by the magic of Hogwarts. And we know that
Harry is going to Godric's Hollow. Two Godrics? Surely not ... so two
birds might just be killed with that stone.

And what time, with plenty of good friends around to help? How about a
wedding? Something old, something new, something borrowed, something
Ravenclaw blue - I'll be watching la belle Fleur very closely.

Will she be married from her parents' home, in Muggle style? That
would be fun!

Deborah, wondering if wizards know about Mendelssohn, and if Cups
might be used in wizarding weddings








From eileennicholson at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 10:33:09 2005
From: eileennicholson at aol.com (eileen_nicholson)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:33:09 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk9lq8+srf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dka4l5+qlmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142412

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > The first sensible thing he does is to fly to some tropical
> paradise on Buckbeak, but he forgoes safety and flies to England to
> live on rats and hide in caves when he hears that Harry's scar hurts.
>snip< Carol responds:
> I'm not saying that it wasn't a noble gesture, but even Harry thought
> it was the wrong thing to do and felt guilty that he had told Sirius
> about his scar. He didn't really help Harry, did he? But my point is
> simply that he chose to come to England and endanger himself when he
> could have provided advice and moral support without risking capture.
> Had he done so, Harry would still have a godfather.

Eileen:
Sirius was a member of the original Order of the Phoenix. When 
Voldemort disappeared and the members of the Order went their separate 
ways, Sirius went to Azkaban - amongst the DEs, aware that Peter 
Pettigrew as still at large. Effectively, from his point of view, the 
first VM war never ended. His character is still poised on a hair-
trigger, waiting for the next call to action. A soldier on active 
service, full of adrenaline. 

Similarly to the way Lupin took on the DADA role at Dumbledore's 
request, and the way that Luna and Neville respond to the DA's call in 
HBP, Sirius once released would do anything Dumbledore, his commanding 
officer, would ask him to do. And though we may not know whether 
Sirius' decision to come back to the UK was entirely his own, we know 
that Dumbledore told him about the cave, and we know that Dumbledore 
was using Sirius to keep him informed of what Harry was thinking about 
and doing right through GoF and OotP, when Dumbledore wasn't willing, 
due to the link between Harry and Voldemort, to do this himself. And I 
suspect that once Sirius was dead, Dumbledore assigned this task to 
Snape, who tackled it during HBP year via legilimens and weekly 
detentions.

I think there is enough evidence to indicate that Sirius was acting as 
Dumbledore's, well, spy if you like (one way of looking at it) with 
Harry, on Dumbledore's specific instructions. And he could only do that 
effectively if Harry trusted him, which means he had to be nearby, 
ready and willing to respond whenever Harry needed him. And, judging by 
the resulting love that Harry showed for him in the DoM, he did it 
really well, didn't he? Sirius was always reckless, but he was 
recklessly making some very hard choices, with Dumbledore's 
encouragement, that put him at great risk from Voldemort and the Death 
Eaters, interposing himself as he did between VM!Harry and Dumbledore. 

In my view, Dumbledore was asking a great deal of him, but Dumbledore 
never seems to ask for something easy, he's always effectively saying 
'you're morally obliged to do this nearly impossible task, and while 
you're doing it, kindly step on these hot coals!' A sort of trademark 
that tasks assigned by Dumbledore seem to exhibit. :)

And also entirely my own view, and unsupported by canon, I come away 
from the books feeling that Sirius was the only person who had Harry's 
interests at heart completely, the only one who was willing always 
(though maybe not always entirely able, and maybe not always 
effectively) to put aside their own agenda and be there for him. 
Harry's love for him is entirely justified.

Eileen









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 13:26:51 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:26:51 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Great Black Dog (was:Debatable ethical issues...)
In-Reply-To: <dk9smi+r2u6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkaeqr+h9fg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142413

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:

> The thing people are forgetting though is that there are several kinds
> of depression; like situational depression vs bio-chemical depression.
> 
> When you are in a depressing situation, depression is exactly the
> appropraite response. If Sirius had been happy and jolly all the time,
> slapping everyone on the back and making grand toasts, THEN I would
> have seriously worried about his sanity. As it was, he was in a
> depressing and frustrating situation, and as a result was depressed
> and frustrated, which is exactly the appropriate response.

There's another factor in here which I think may be under-rated:

Depression based on circumstances and the more elusive biological 
factors often form a feedback loop.  You feel awful and you don't know 
why, and it impacts your daily life; bad things are happening to you, 
and they make you feel awful.  An extended state in this period is 
particularly hard to get out of, because it has such lingering anad 
profound effects.

People who are under a lot of stress for a significant period of time 
suffer physical effects from it, including decreased functioning of any 
number of body systems.  It's much the same thing with depression; 
staying in a depressed state damages the body's neurochemistry.  (So 
does abuse of things like Ecstacy, because they screw with the 
serotonin transmitters, and can eventually burn them out.)

Now, think of being in a place where intense depression is being 
forcibly imposed on everyone there, by outside and horrifying factors.  
Twelve years of that (as opposed to the one of Barty, and unshielded by 
his fanaticism).  That's going to leave some pretty screwed up mental 
chemistry, and I think that contributes to Sirius' situational 
volitility.  He's up and on the run and being useful: it's easier to 
keep at bay, although I bet he had some dark nights of the soul.  
Cooped up in the house, chained by his own sense of honor and 
obligation (as I think has been ably demonstrated), and not able to 
take action...he's going to bounce like a bungee jumper.  Everything 
positive means much more than it would otherwise, but everything 
negative is even worse, too.

If wizards are human, this obtains.

-Nora yawns and wakes up for class






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 14:24:59 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:24:59 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk98uc+9667@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkai7r+275e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142414

Carol stated:
> Black has made the bed that he's lying in.

SSSusan:
Wow.  Um.  This really struck me last night, but I decided it was too 
late to try to craft a response.  Fortunately, this morning, I see 
that many people have responded already, making points I would have 
wanted to make myself.  So I can maybe be brief. :-)


Carol:
> He talked James Potter into making Wormtail the Secret Keeper.

SSSusan:
Nora pointed out [in 142396] that James *and* Lily agreed to Sirius' 
SK switch idea; this was not something Sirius DID himself nor FORCED 
upon others.  If Sirius can be blamed for trusting Peter, so can 
James & Lily be.  And as Christina [in 142404] pointed out, 
suggesting the switch did nothing to reduce the risk into which 
Sirius placed himself.


Carol:
> He took matters into his own hands and went after Wormtail rather 
> than going to Dumbledore

SSSusan:
Going after Peter himself was a very "Sirius-like" action, I agree.  
It was *not* particularly wise.


Carol:
> He laughed like a madman when Wormtail killed all the Muggles

SSSusan:
I fail to see how Sirius' laughter speaks to his having "made the bed 
upon which he lies."  Is the suggestion here that he CHOSE to laugh?  
That he KNOWINGLY thought to himself, "Gee. I think *this* would be a 
good time to laugh"?  No, JKR addressed this in the Melissa/Emerson 
interview:  

"The laughter ? he was absolutely unhinged by James's death. ...He 
knew what he'd lost. It was a humorless laugh."   It was certainly an 
involuntary reaction, no?


Carol:
> After twelve years in Azkaban, he escaped with the noble intention 
> of murdering his former friend and behaved in ways that reinforced 
> the perception that he was a homicidal maniac

SSSusan:
Post-escape, Sirius' behavior does nothing to dissuade those who 
believe he's a murderer, true.  He's angry and desperate to stop 
Pettigrew from reaching Harry.  He's a fugitive and no one knows the 
truth about himself and Pettigrew, so to whom could he have turned?


Carol:
> He forgoes safety and flies to England to live on rats and hide in 
> caves when he hears that Harry's scar hurts.

SSSusan:
Well, yes, indeed he did this ? after Harry's letter which spoke 
about the scar hurting.  Sirius CARES about Harry, who is a *child* 
still.  A parentless child to whom he is godfather.  A child who's 
obviously in danger and whom this godfather has been able to DO 
nothing about for 12 years.  Now he has the chance to DO something.  
He has an obligation, and Harry wants him in his life.  True, Sirius 
could have elected to stay put, to stay safe, so that he'd have a 
better chance of being there later on... but how many of us would 
have done that?  And, as Nora pointed out, how many of us would've 
called that cowardly?  Catch-22.  

I would also point to Eileen's excellent comments [in 142412] as a 
distinct possibility:
> And though we may not know whether Sirius' decision to come back to 
> the UK was entirely his own, we know that Dumbledore told him about 
> the cave, and we know that Dumbledore was using Sirius to keep him 
> informed of what Harry was thinking about and doing right through 
> GoF and OotP, when Dumbledore wasn't willing, due to the link 
> between Harry and Voldemort, to do this himself


Carol:
> He's at least living in his own house with Kreacher and dear old 
> mum for company

SSSusan:
He's "at least" living in his old home.  Um, yes, it was a choice, 
but it's not exactly something which provides comfort to Sirius.  
Short of continuing to stay in Padfoot mode and out in caves, where 
else could Sirius have gone *once* he'd chosen to be near Harry?  I 
would argue that the house triggered in Sirius the same kinds of 
things the Dementors triggered at Azkaban:  desperation, despair, 
depression, frustration.  


Carol:
> He brings Snape's taunts on himself with his incivility.

SSSusan:
Well, Nora's addressed this.  The two of `em were acting like 
juveniles.  But Snape had the upper hand and KNEW it ? why couldn't 
he, for once, have let it go, basking in the knowledge that he was 
doing useful work for the Order (presumably) and that this man he 
hated was trapped into inaction?  I guess it just wasn't in Snape's 
nature to have done so (see comments below).


Carol:
> He chooses to remain, drowning his sorrows in self-pity and 
> firewhisky (or whatever he's drinking) and living in the past.

SSSusan:
Wow.  That seems a rather heartless assessment to me.  Sirius is a 
DOer.  Sirius is frustrated, forced into inactivity.  His only other 
choice, as you pointed out, is to go back to his tropical hideaway.  
How does this represent much of a choice for a man who's both a doer 
by nature and who loves and wants to protect his godson?  No, I'm 
convinced of the depression at work here.  I'm convinced JKR wants us 
to think about what 12 YEARS of being surrounded & haunted by 
Dementors, followed by a "freedom" marred by inability to prove one's 
innocence, does to a person:  it causes depression.  And depression, 
as others have noted, ain't just "snap-out-able."  


Carol:
> The responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
> to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.

SSSusan:
Again, this strikes me as harsh.  And leads to what I intended to be 
the gist of my post:  making excuses or rationalizations or 
explanations or allowances [choose your term] for characters.  

I'm certain ? absolutely certain ? that some listees will read my 
above "defenses" of Sirius as rationalization or explaining away or 
whatnot.  And you know what?  They are!  I do look at Sirius' 
situation, at the circumstances in which he finds himself, at his 
personality traits, AS WELL AS his choices.  I attempt to do this for 
other characters, too, not just for Sirius.  But that's where I think 
the "problem" often comes in:  consistency in allowing or doing this 
with other characters, not just the one being defended or trashed.

I've been considering my moniker:  Siriusly Snapey Susan.  I am in 
the rather unusual, so it would seem, position of being both a Sirius 
fan and a believer in Snape's loyalty to DD.  Notice I did not say a 
Snape apologist or Snape defender.  People who know me know I've done 
my share of Snape bashing, and yet I remain convinced of his position 
as DDM!.  I also will acknowledge Sirius' flaws (see a couple of 
acknowledgments above).  But perhaps because I'm not the more 
typical "either-or" HPfGUer when it comes to choosing Sirius *OR* 
Snape to defend or like or believe in, I'm struck by how things which 
are excused in one are often held up as a failing in the other.

Let me try to explain.  

Sirius made CHOICES.  He chose to escape from Azkaban and go after 
Wormtail.  He chose to return to London when Harry began exhibiting 
disturbing signs of Voldy's influence/presence.  He chose to galavant 
about as Padfoot when it wasn't wise.  He chose to remain in his 
family home, which he despised, so that he could be near Harry and 
hopefully be useful to the Order somehow.  He chose to be uncivil to 
Snape & to threaten him when provoked.  He chose to go to the MoM 
when the rest of the available Order members took off to help the DA 
kids.  These *were* all choices... but why were they made?  They 
were, imo, choices influenced by situation, personality 
characteristics, hatred for the Dark Arts and concern for Harry.

Let's look at Snape.  He's made CHOICES, too.  He chose to learn & 
create several dark spells.  He chose to join the DEs.  He chose to 
be a follower of the Dark Lord.  He chose to "return" (DD's word) to 
DD's side.  He chose to teach at Hogwarts.  He chose to engage in 
Order activities of unknown specification.  He chose to be an a**hole 
in the classroom.  He chose to play favorites with several students.  
He chose to behave "like a madman" after Sirius' escape from the 
tower in PoA.  He chose to single out Harry & Neville for humiliation 
and snide, sarcastic remarks.  He chose to treat Harry as if he were 
James.  He chose to rise to Sirius' bait and goad Sirius at 12GP.  He 
chose to inform the Order that Harry, et al., had likely taken off 
for the MoM.  He chose to AK DD.  These *were* all choices... but why 
were they made?  They were, imo, choices influenced by situation, 
personality characteristics and... and what??  

With Sirius we *know* his motivations pretty much, don't we?  We know 
he was rash by nature and anxious to take action.  But we also know 
he wanted to "do right" by James & Lily, wanted to avenge their 
murders, wanted to fight Voldemort and the DEs, wanted to care for 
his godson.  

With Snape, WHAT DO WE KNOW about his motivations?  Very, very 
little, as anyone who visits these boards knows!  I'm a firm DDM!
Snaper myself, and I can argue that position (quite well, I think ;-
)) with evidence and reasonable supposition.  BUT so can the OFH!
Snaper and the ESE!Snaper.  His motivations are ambiguous.  We can't 
say "Snape did X because he cares about Harry" or "Snape risked his 
own life because he believed so fully in DD and the cause."  We can 
think this is possible (or not), but we can't speak with much 
certainty because JKR has left it so open.  He *might* just as easily 
have done X because he's watching out for his own ass.  He *might* 
just as easily have risked his own life because he's gathering 
information to report to Voldemort at the same time.

My point?  That if we're going to judge one character as having "made 
the bed in which he lies," then we ought to judge others the same 
way.  And while it's *easier* to judge Sirius because the picture is 
clearer and his life is over, hasn't Snape made the bed in which he 
lies just as much as ? perhaps more than? ? Sirius did?  

Eileen said this:
> Sirius was always reckless, but he was recklessly making some very 
> hard choices, with Dumbledore's encouragement, that put him at 
> great risk from Voldemort and the Death Eaters, interposing himself 
> as he did between VM!Harry and Dumbledore.

SSSusan again:
See, I think this is the way to look at things.  WHAT was behind the 
choices made?  With *Sirius* in this particular case, yes, but with 
*all characters* as well?  If we're NOT going to allow, for 
Sirius, "excuses" like rashness as a personality trait or possible 
depression or the impact of 12 years of Dementor presence & the 
frustration of being unable to prove one's innocence regarding 
despicable crimes, then what about Snape?  No "excuses" such as 
Insecure!Snape or Narcissistic!Snape, who can't HELP the way he 
treats the kids, or his inability "by nature" to let go of the James 
grudge and therefore to dissociate Harry from James.  No ignoring 
that Snape likely did some nasty sh*t as a DE, which he *elected* to 
become.  No ignoring that his earlier choices have led to his being 
in a very delicate position now ? playing loyal party to both sides, 
teetering always on the brink of someone's discovering the truth.  

I just think the harsh judgment of one character, the writing off of 
him as having "made the bed in which he lies," seemingly ignoring the 
complexity of influences, decisions, happenstance and personality, 
invites the same kind of judgment of other characters.  Do we write 
them off as quickly and easily, or do we justify, explain, and 
rationalize the position they're in and the choices they've made?  
Fairness would require consistency.

Not that I'm perfect in this, but I work at it. ;-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping she sounds reasonable and not angry.







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  2 14:41:37 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 06:41:37 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk9lq8+srf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002101c5dfbb$88d6bce0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142415

Carol responds:
I'm not saying that it wasn't a noble gesture, but even Harry thought
it was the wrong thing to do and felt guilty that he had told Sirius
about his scar. He didn't really help Harry, did he? But my point is
simply that he chose to come to England and endanger himself when he
could have provided advice and moral support without risking capture.
Had he done so, Harry would still have a godfather.
> 
> 
Sherry now:
But he did give something to Harry.  by being nearby, it gave Harry a sense
that someone he loved and trusted was there for him, that elusive parental
figure he so desperately wanted.  Whether or not hindsight says it was good
or bad, I think it was the only right thing for him to do at the time.  i've
always found his presence in Dumbledore's office after the graveyard one of
the most moving scenes in the series.  Harry draws comfort and strength from
his presence.  Harry needed him, and no matter what the eventual
consequences, it was the right thing to do at the time.  What parental
loving guardian would have done less?  we have the advantage of knowing what
happened later, but the characters do not.  Sirius mad the only reasonable
choice he could.

Sherry




From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 14:45:33 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:45:33 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk98uc+9667@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkajed+67t5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142416

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
>> Now I'm going to step out on a limb and say that Black's 
situation is
> in large measure his own fault. While others (notably Wormtail and
> Dumbledore, and to a lesser degree, Snape with his taunts) play a
> role, Black has made the bed that he's lying in. To begin with, he
> talked James Potter into making Wormtail the Secret Keeper. 

<massive snippage>

Marianne:

This has always bothered me about dissections of Sirius' character. 
The fact that he made a mistake in trusting his friend Peter is 
somehow a character flaw in Sirius. I suppose it's also a flaw with 
James and Lily, and obviously Dumbledore, too, in that the man 
running the OoP didn't figure out Peter was a spy, but Sirius is the 
one taken to task for it.  Yes, you can say that this event was the 
precursor for things that went wrong in Sirius' life later, but I'm 
uncomfortable for condemning people for honestly made mistakes, 
especially when they end up paying a high price for someone else's 
sin.  

Marianne






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 15:02:10 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:02:10 -0000
Subject: The Ring and the Hand - The Living and the Dead
In-Reply-To: <dk8l9t+pgdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkakdi+hodu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142417

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
> For example, if Dumbledore had tossed the Ring into the Veil, it 
would
> have simply fallen to the floor on the otherside. True the Ring 
does
> contain a soul-piece, but the Ring itself is not alive. Only living
> things can make the connection to the 'great beyond'. 
 So, the only way Dumbledore could make the connection to the 
spiritual
> 'great beyond' aspect of the Archway, and thereby release the 
trapped
> soul-piece, was if the Ring passed into the Veil as part of a 
living
> thing. 
 
> Perhaps Dumbledore knew, guess, suspected, hoped that there was a
> slight time delay that would give him the opportunity to pass his
> living hand into the Veil, drop the Ring, and snatch his hand back
> before the 'realm beyond the Veil' claimed him too. This could tie 
in
> nicely with comments about Dumbledore's reactions times and 
reflexes
> not being what they once were. 

Marianne:
I can buy that reasoning, and I like how you've connected it with 
Dumbledore's supposed decreased reaction times/reflexes. My comment 
regarding sticking one's head through the veil was somewhat tongue-
in-cheek.  By your reasoning, one could perhaps hold the locket in 
one's hand and try to do the same thing.

Not that I'm asking you to provide answers but, like most ideas on 
this board, thoughts always lead to other questions, such as why is 
the release of a soul bit so destructive? Is it because it was 
delivered by an entirely different person, ie, not the "owner" of 
the soul?  Is it because it is only part of someone's soul? Does the 
Great Beyond behind the Veil know that what is in the ring is only 
part of a soul, and that the remaining soul is still on the mortal 
side of the Veil?  That gives me a picture of a Supreme Being having 
a fit of pique - "What is this soul shred that just arrived?  
Where's the rest of it?"  It's like getting mad at the FedEx guy for 
not delivery everything you ordered.

Marianne







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  2 15:27:12 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:27:12 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkai7r+275e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkalsg+flik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142418

> SSSusan:
> See, I think this is the way to look at things.  WHAT was behind 
the 
> choices made?  With *Sirius* in this particular case, yes, but with 
> *all characters* as well?  If we're NOT going to allow, for 
> Sirius, "excuses" like rashness as a personality trait or possible 
> depression or the impact of 12 years of Dementor presence & the 
> frustration of being unable to prove one's innocence regarding 
> despicable crimes, then what about Snape?  No "excuses" such as 
> Insecure!Snape or Narcissistic!Snape, who can't HELP the way he 
> treats the kids, or his inability "by nature" to let go of the 
James 
> grudge and therefore to dissociate Harry from James.  No ignoring 
> that Snape likely did some nasty sh*t as a DE, which he *elected* 
to 
> become.  No ignoring that his earlier choices have led to his being 
> in a very delicate position now ? playing loyal party to both 
sides, 
> teetering always on the brink of someone's discovering the truth.  
> 
> I just think the harsh judgment of one character, the writing off 
of 
> him as having "made the bed in which he lies," seemingly ignoring 
the 
> complexity of influences, decisions, happenstance and personality, 
> invites the same kind of judgment of other characters.  Do we write 
> them off as quickly and easily, or do we justify, explain, and 
> rationalize the position they're in and the choices they've made?  
> Fairness would require consistency.
> 
> Not that I'm perfect in this, but I work at it. ;-)

Ceridwen:
That's all true.  We do tend to cluster around our favorite 
characters.  Sirius has never been one of my favorites, while Snape 
has.  But, I can see how Sirius's temperment affects the way he 
attacks life.  He made some bad mistakes, the last one costing his 
life (punishment enough, I think!) because he didn't wait for 
Dumbledore.  Yet, I think we can all understand why he went to the 
MoM, as well as why that wasn't such a good thing for him to do.

Carol:
>> After twelve years in Azkaban, he escaped with the noble intention
>> of murdering his former friend and behaved in ways that reinforced
>> the perception that he was a homicidal maniac

SSSusan:
> Post-escape, Sirius' behavior does nothing to dissuade those who
> believe he's a murderer, true. He's angry and desperate to stop
> Pettigrew from reaching Harry. He's a fugitive and no one knows the
> truth about himself and Pettigrew, so to whom could he have turned?

Ceridwen:
I'd agree with Carol here - he could have turned to Dumbledore.  
Otherwise, everyone who asked that, has a point.  Most people in the 
MoM, and probably the majority of wizards and witches who know of or 
were around when the murder of the Potters was big news, would shun 
him in fear, call for the DMLE, and have him shipped right back to 
Azkaban, or the embrace of a 'loving' Dementor.

And, I think that's where Lupin fell down.  I'm still not sure where 
Lupin stood with Sirius.  I've read that he was the one letting 
Sirius into the castle, *and* that he didn't know any more than 
anyone else about what really happened, including the SK switch 
(hence the apparent mistrust at first in the Shrieking Shack).  
Taking all of that together, then, Lupin having special knowledge 
about Sirius's Animagus form yet not knowing the circumstances of GH, 
he should have told Dumbledore to have the staff be on the look-out 
for a big, black dog.  Lupin himself admits that this was a failing 
on his part.  If he'd told Dumbledore about the dog, it's possible 
Dumbledore would have gone out of his way to find Sirius before the 
whole Shrieking Shack episode and sort things out.  Of course, we 
wouldn't have gotten nearly as good a story out of it!  ;)

I tend to the 'arrested development' theory of Sirius - his adult 
life was spent in a place where he was unable to change and grow into 
a more responsible person.  I don't know how he could catch up on 
that development other than to force himself into it, as he would 
have done, at a more leisurely pace, if he'd not gone to prison.  I 
don't think he wanted to change, he didn't see anything wrong with 
being a leaper before a looker, and he didn't get out enough to see 
examples which would have taught him better.

So, maybe this is where the Order failed him.  They mentioned things 
he had to do, and treated him like an adult who was able to draw on 
examples from his past in order to do them, when he didn't have the 
base to get it done.  But, is the Order culpable?  Or is the fact 
that there is a war, and time is limited, an extenuating circumstance?

And, I'm including Snape in that, taunts and all.  The WW doesn't 
seem to be too aware of mental problems, other than the ward at St. 
Mungo's.  No one, Snape included, probably gave the whole history of 
Sirius's life much thought when they interacted with him.  And for 
that matter, neither did Sirius, and neither did Hermione with all 
her book-learning and pop psychology with the house elves.  Oddly 
here, I'd expect more from someone raised in a Muggle environment, 
with all of our emphasis on mental disabilities, to know more.  
Meaning Hermione, and possibly Harry and Snape.

Just because people failed here, I'm not suggesting they're 
eeeeevil.  Just unaware.  Not many of us deal with severe clinical 
depression as a matter of course, not even in the Muggle world, and 
we make mistakes.  You can't say that people who have no awareness 
could do better.  (And for that lack of awareness, I'd point to the 
WW as a whole as part of the problem.)

Thing is, I don't think I would have done any better.  If I had 
Sirius's temperment, I would probably have done everything the way he 
did it, if I had Snape's temperment, and lack of awareness of the 
seriousness of Sirius's problem, I'd have risen to Sirius's bait as 
well.  And, I'm familiar with the explanation of 'a cry for help'.  
Same with the other members of the Order.  That's the way the WW 
seems to operate, like it or not.  The apparent resilience 
(physically) of witches and wizards seems to make everyone think that 
everyone else can bounce back like the proverbial ferret, when it 
just isn't so.

Ceridwen.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 15:51:22 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:51:22 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP and Lifedebts
In-Reply-To: <dkajed+67t5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkan9q+uc88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142419

> Marianne:
> 
> This has always bothered me about dissections of Sirius' 
character. 
> The fact that he made a mistake in trusting his friend Peter is 
> somehow a character flaw in Sirius. I suppose it's also a flaw 
with 
> James and Lily, and obviously Dumbledore, too, in that the man 
> running the OoP didn't figure out Peter was a spy, but Sirius is 
the 
> one taken to task for it.  Yes, you can say that this event was 
the 
> precursor for things that went wrong in Sirius' life later, but 
I'm 
> uncomfortable for condemning people for honestly made mistakes, 
> especially when they end up paying a high price for someone else's 
> sin.  

Magpie:

I have to agree.  I mean, for me what's so tragic about Sirius (whom 
I liked much more after OotP and wished we'd spent more time with 
him in that book) is that of course his fate is ultimately his own 
doing--everyone's is.  His life was a combination of circumstances 
beyond his control and his own personality governing the way he 
reacted to it, just as it is with every other character.  In Sirius' 
case events conspired to the point where everything about him, good 
and bad, led him to 12 years in Azkaban and a surprise death at the 
hands of his cousin.  

The fact that Sirius intentionally convinced his friends to make 
Peter the secret keeper because he thought it was safer is probably 
the reason behind that crazed laugh.  Sirius, James and Lily all 
fell straight into Peter's trap and all wound up dead because of it; 
Sirius can't help but see his part in it.  I agree with Marianne 
that this is hardly a character flaw of Sirius'.  And I think 
Sirius' own death worked the same way--Harry fell right into 
Kreacher's trap. Harry's insistance on going to the MoM etc. was far 
more directly tied to Sirius' death than Snape taunting him months 
before, which Harry must know.  That's probably why he's focusing on 
it, trying to believe that if Snape hadn't taunted Sirius about 
being useless Sirius wouldn't have gone to rescue Harry from the 
trap Harry himself walked into against the warnings of his own 
friends.  (One of the twins "taunts" Sirius the same way in OotP 
anyway, after Arthur is attacked.)

Still, it's not like we should blame Harry for Sirius' death any 
more than we should blame Sirius for James' death or his own 
imprisonment and death.  James and Lily were killed by Voldemort, 
with Peter intentionally helping them.  Sirius no doubt blames 
himself for their deaths but he was trying to save them.  Same with 
Harry and Sirius--he was trying to save Sirius and his good 
intention was used against him.  Bellatrix killed Sirius.  True 
Sirius' recklessness helped get him to the place where Bellatrix 
could act, and Harry's actions played a part as well, but while I 
can understand being *frustrated* by their actions because you see 
how it's leading them to their doom, I don't they can be blamed in 
the sense of absolving anyone else's guilt, if that makes sense.

And on lifedebts:

colebiancardi

However, I am curious if Draco owes Snape a lifedebt now. I wonder 
if the Unbreakable Vow nulls that out - Snape could have died, he 
could have turned his back on Draco. But Snape did save Draco.

Magpie:

I don't see why he should owe him a lifedebt for making the Vow.  
It's hard to explain, but it just doesn't seem to be a situation 
like the lifedebts we've seen--actually I've recently been thinking 
that perhaps it's ironic that DD claims Snape owes James a lifedebt 
before he knows that James was an animagus.  Did James get credit 
for risking his life more than he did since DD didn't know James 
hung out with werewolf!Lupin all the time?

Anyway, in Draco's case his life isn't in danger that very second.  
Nor does Snape remove the threat of Voldemort, really.  Draco's 
still under his thumb whether he kills Dumbledore or not.  Plus, 
what seems even more important is the fact that I really don't think 
that Snape's killing Dumbledore could possibly be seen as the sort 
of selfless life-giving act associated with the Lifedebt.  If Draco 
chooses not to kill Dumbledore, that's a good choice on his part, 
because killing Dumbledore is wrong, even if it means the death of 
Draco himself.  So I can't see that Snape stepping in and committing 
the evil act for him should put Draco in his debt.  It would almost 
be like saying that if Draco killed Dumbledore even when he really 
didn't want to that Snape should be in Draco's debt because he saved 
Snape from his own UV.  Or--more accurately--that if Peter or Snape 
had pushed Lily out of the way when Voldemort was trying to kill 
Harry she would owe him a life debt.  It just doesn't seem right. 

colebiancardi:

I really don't think Snape *likes* Draco all that much - the whole 
scene on the Tower where he roughly and shoved Draco out of the way -
 he grabbed him after DD fell off the tower. Just seems if one likes 
someone, they wouldn't manhandle them like that. Or at least that is 
how I read it. I wonder if any of the other posters have any 
thoughts on Snape, Draco, Unbreakable Vows and does that mean they 
null out a lifedebt or not?

Magpie:

I think Snape's manhandling has everything to do with the situation 
and not his personal feelings about Draco.  The situation all year 
has been incredibly frustrating for him, and now here it's all ended 
just the way he didn't want it too.  (Apparently movie!Dumbledore is 
even worse to Harry in the GoF movie!)  Whatever is going on in that 
scene isn't about revealing Snape's personal feelings for Draco, 
imo.  To me he still read as protective towards him in the scene--
especially when he siezes him by the scruff of the neck.  I can't 
believe that choice of words wasn't deliberately suggesting a 
parental image.  "By the scruff of the neck" is associated with a 
mother car picking up her kitten.

I think the idea in HBP is that Snape and Draco do have a good 
relationship (at least they like each other), but that this year 
it's broken down, much like Harry's and Dumbledore's in OotP.  Draco 
seems determined to "be a man" and do the deed Voldemort wants him 
to do alone, he's refusing to let Snape help (or prevent him), he's 
accusing Snape of trying to "steal his glory" and therefore stop him 
from growing up (and really, he's right).  I get the sense from 
their argument that his father's imprisonment is seriously changing 
his personality towards Snape.  Basically, it seems like a not 
atypical adult/kid relationship when the kid goes through 
adolescence.  For me it does seem to indicate a real relationship 
and not just Snape looking out for the kid for some other reason 
without really liking him.  

But then I've always been frustrated by how generally accepted an 
idea it's been for years in fandom that Snape's seemingly positive 
relationship with Draco is all an act or part of some grand scheme 
of his and that he really doesn't like him at all.  Sometimes it 
seems like that's just more fandom trying to get Snape in line with 
their own thoughts: Draco's not good enough for Snape, so Snape is 
just pretending to like him and really he likes Neville and Harry et 
al., only he can't show it.  It explains away an inconvenient part 
of canon.  Not that I'm saying you're doing that here.  I just think 
that the Snape/Draco relationship is consistent and intentionally 
done to suggest an actual connection on the other side.  I was 
pleased it was used to push Snape to reveal himself one way or the 
other.

-m







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  2 15:55:55 2005
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:55:55 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP.
In-Reply-To: <dk8pmh+8tao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkanib+cq6q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142420

"lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...> wrote:


> I still think Harry's `I'll make sure
> I take as many Death Eaters with me
> as I can,' line is horrifying. 

I found it quite noble and eminently practical, those Death Eaters
Harry killed in his last act would otherwise killed other good people.
Suppose it was WW2, would you still be horrified at a 16 year old boy
who killed some Nazis hust before he died?

> I noticed a violent, vindictive, 
> bloddy note that I definitely don't like. 

I can understand and agree how you could feel that way about a real
person, but not a character in a book. I don't want a character to do
the right thing, I only want him to do the interesting thing. Harry
disemboweling Voldemort is interesting, Harry killing Voldemort with
love is not. 

Harry to Voldemort at the conclusion of book 7: "I'ma call a coupla
hard, pipe-hittin' Phoenix members, who'll go to work on the home here
with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talking',
hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get
medieval on your ass." 

Eggplant











From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Wed Nov  2 17:31:55 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:31:55 -0000
Subject: Sirius's situation his fault? WAS Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk9ik6+r1og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkat6b+csmu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142421

> Carol:
(mucho snipped)
> > After Godric's Hollow, he took matters into his own hands and 
went 
> > after Wormtail rather than going to Dumbledore for help

Lucianam:

That was not his first choice. We know from Hagrid that before going 
after Peter he asked Hagrid to give Harry to him. How could he have 
gone after Peter with a baby in his arms? Unless you believe Sirius 
to be completely crazy, his intention of taking the baby with him 
shows he had a plan to go somewhere else. We don't know where, of 
course. Maybe he even meant to go to Dumbledore, why not? He was 
single, he didn't live with his family, he didn't trust his only 
other close 'friend' left, Lupin.

Maybe he indeed planned to go see Dumbledore, but we won't ever know 
that, will we?

Only after Hagrid tells Sirius he can't have his godson, Sirius 
leaves to find Peter.

> 
> 
> > Carol:
> > (again, snipped)
> > The first sensible thing he does is to fly to some
> > tropical paradise on Buckbeak, but he forgoes safety and flies to
> > England to live on rats and hide in caves when he hears that
> > Harry's scar hurts.
> >

Lucianam:

It's clear Sirius puts Harry's well-being before his own, even 
before his own safety.

>Sherry:
(snip snip)
> Snape pushed Sirius' buttons,
>and Sirius allowed them to be pushed. So, ok, they were both acting 
>more
>like a child than Harry, but that doesn't make Sirius any more to 
>blame for
>that argument than Snape. In fact, since it was Sirius' house and 
>it wasdealing with Sirius' god son, perhaps dear Sevvy should have 
>tried to show a
>little more respect.

About Snape, funnily I don't think he was much to blame. He was 
Sirius's 'enemy', and whatever he said made Sirius pissed and 
uneasy, maybe even contributed to his wish to leave the house and go 
to the MOM, but I don't think it added much to his depression.

I think what Sirius's friends - The Order - didn't do had more 
weight. Molly's lack of confidence in Sirius, Dumbledore not 
thinking of an alternative solution to his being locked up, nodoby 
actually trying to reach him and cheer him up... Well, I can't help 
noticing we read a lot about Sirius going up to his mother's room to 
be alone with Buckbeak, and not once we read about anyone (Arthur, 
Molly, Lupin, Tonks, Moody, Dumbledore, Bill, anyone at all!) 
knocking on the door and trying to talk to him. Why not even once?

Lucianam












From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 17:42:07 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:42:07 -0000
Subject: Sirius' situation his own fault? WASRe: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkalsg+flik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkatpf+sfe2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142422

> SSSusan:
> > Post-escape, Sirius' behavior does nothing to dissuade those who
> > believe he's a murderer, true. He's angry and desperate to stop
> > Pettigrew from reaching Harry. He's a fugitive and no one knows 
the
> > truth about himself and Pettigrew, so to whom could he have 
turned?
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I'd agree with Carol here - he could have turned to Dumbledore.  
> Otherwise, everyone who asked that, has a point.  

Alla:

I snipped pretty much everything, since I am in agreement with 
SSSusan post (well, not about Snape being DD!M of course, but with 
her assesment of Sirius situation and general line of argument about 
different positions about Snape's motivations, absolutely :-))

I just wanted to comment on Sirius' turning to Dumbledore. I don't 
see it at all. All that Sirius knows is that Dumbledore gave the 
evidence that he was a Secretkeeper. Since Sirius knows that he  
erm... was not one, I think he would have VERY grave doubts about 
whether Dumbledore would believe him or not. I don't see Sirius 
turning to Dumbledore. When Dumbledore indeed believed Sirius, Sirius 
followed his orders ever since, but if I were in Sirius shoes, I am 
not sure I would gone to Dumbledore, frankly.

JMO,

Alla






From sweetnightingale at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 16:49:58 2005
From: sweetnightingale at sbcglobal.net (Sharon Hawkinson)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:49:58 -0600
Subject: Mysterious Dumbledore/Hogwarts Instructors being single
Message-ID: <035701c5dfcd$76624a90$210110ac@621B10B>

No: HPFGUIDX 142423

Hi Gang,

First off, before I get into the heart of my message, I'd just like to say "Hi" from a Newbie. My name's Sharon, and I'm a relatively new HP fan. I read the first 2 books in February of 2005 and then read the remaining 4 in October. Yes, I devoured them and will read them over and over again. I can hardly wait for the 7th book to become available.

Anyway, I hope these subjects haven't been discussed recently. I waded through October's and November's messages so far and haven't seen these threads, so here goes. 

What is everyone's take on Dumbledore and the mysteries behind him? Nothing was ever mentioned about any family he might have, any worst fears, where he came from before his life at Hogwarts, or how he became Headmaster at Hogwarts. His life, for the most part, is a big mystery. I'm wondering if perhaps more about Dumbledore's life will be revealed in the 7th book. I was deeply saddened when he was killed by Snape in HBP. Also, another Dumbledore question is, why did he want to see Snape so badly once he and Harry returned from getting the horcrux? He was pleading with Snape, but the reasoning for this was never revealed.

For the most part, I like Dumbledore. At times, he had the patience of a saint, was very wise 90% of the time, and he had a kind heart, especially where his students were concerned. I bawled my head off when Dumbledore was killed in HBP. However, it irked me when he'd leave Harry in the dark about a lot of information that Harry had a right to know. I think it was OoP when he admitted to Harry that he should have told him more about his scar and why Voldemort wanted to kill him as a baby, but then he again kept things from Harry. 

Now, onto the next subject. Has anyone ever noticed that Hogwarts instructors aren't married or have no significant other? The instructors seem to lead very lonely and isolated lives, in my opinion. The only reference to an instructor being in love with someone was Lupin and Tonks (sp), but of course, that was after Lupin resigned from Hogwarts.

Sharon








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  2 17:46:24 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:46:24 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk9lq8+srf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkau1g+th3l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142424

> Carol responds:
> I'm not saying that his decision to go to the MoM was a bad one in
> and of itslef; just that Snape told him to wait for Dumbledore and
> had he done so, he would not have been killed. <snip>I'm sure that
> he felt he was doing his duty and finally getting a chance to help
> Harry and the Order, but it's unclear whether his presence made any
> difference. 

Jen: Oh, Sirius going to the MOM (and showing up back at Hogsmeade 
in GOF) made a huge difference, we just haven't found out why 
yet. ;) He was acting on an even greater loyalty in those events, I 
suspect, than his loyalty to Dumbledore and the Order.

Not only did JKR promise there was a reason why he died, she also 
dangled this little tidbit out there: "At the time that they 
christened Harry, they were in hiding. This was not going to be a 
widely attended christening, because he was already in danger. So 
this is something they were going to do very quietly, with as few 
people as possible, that they wanted to make this commitment with 
Sirius. And ? yeah. Can't say much more." (TLC/MN interview)

Sirius being named Godfather could mean so much more than just a 
ceremonial title, and actually more than being a guardian as well. 
James and Lily didn't have the luxury most of us have when choosing 
a Godparent/guardian, of never really believing the job will be 
fulfilled. And Harry wasn't just *any* baby, he was already 
considered to be one of the Chosen Ones and in great danger, and 
Sirius wasn't just any guardian, he was magically powerful as a 
young man, completely resistant to the pull of the dark arts and 
intensely loyal to James, Lily and Harry. 

So I think that Godparent ceremony will turn out to be yet another 
magical security blanket Harry received, activated when Sirius died 
defending him. Dumbledore wouldn't even have to be aware of it, 
although if he was, it might explain why he wanted Sirius to stay at 
Grimmauld and alive. Dumbledore probably would have felt Harry's 
bond with Sirius was more important to his power than any magical 
protection offered by Sirius' death. My best guess is DD just didn't 
know. Lupin does though, I'd bet and will be the one to fill Harry 
in. Possibly he will even go with the Trio to visit Godric's Hollow? 
(That would please me immensely, to see Lupin have a chance to put 
some of his painful past behind him). 

I do think Sirius was thinking of his loyalty to the Potters rather 
than defying Dumbledore when he went to the MOM that night, FWIW.

Jen






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 18:14:24 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:14:24 -0000
Subject: Sirius' situation his own fault? WASRe: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkatpf+sfe2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkavm0+oon7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142425

SSSusan:
> > > Post-escape, Sirius ... [is] a fugitive and no one knows 
> > > the truth about himself and Pettigrew, so to whom could he have 
> > > turned?
 
Ceridwen:
> > I'd agree with Carol here - he could have turned to Dumbledore.  
 
Alla:
> I just wanted to comment on Sirius' turning to Dumbledore. I don't 
> see it at all. All that Sirius knows is that Dumbledore gave the 
> evidence that he was a Secretkeeper. Since Sirius knows that he  
> erm... was not one, I think he would have VERY grave doubts about 
> whether Dumbledore would believe him or not. 


SSSusan again:
And there's another issue as well, methinks.  Sirius sat at Azkaban 
for 12 years, during which time DD apparently never once visited or 
contacted Sirius to get his account of the GH affair/murder of PP/12 
muggles.  That is, if we believe that DD was as surprised as anyone 
else at the end of PoA to discover the truth about Peter's betrayal 
and Sirius' innocence, then he never made such an effort.  

If I'd been Sirius, knowing that DD "didn't care enough" [that's how 
I'd *feel* anyway] to come ASK me what had happened, I'd be reluctant 
to go running to him straight off myself.

Siriusly Snapey Susan








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 18:33:56 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:33:56 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkai7r+275e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkb0qk+eao8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142426

Carol earlier:
> > Black has made the bed that he's lying in.

<big snip of SSS's responses to individual points>

SiriuslySnapeySusan:
> Wow.  That seems a rather heartless assessment to me.  Sirius is a
DOer.  Sirius is frustrated, forced into inactivity.  His only other
choice, as you pointed out, is to go back to his tropical hideaway.
How does this represent much of a choice for a man who's both a doer 
by nature and who loves and wants to protect his godson?  No, I'm
convinced of the depression at work here.  I'm convinced JKR wants us
 to think about what 12 YEARS of being surrounded & haunted by
Dementors, followed by a "freedom" marred by inability to prove one's
 innocence, does to a person:  it causes depression.  And depression,
as others have noted, ain't just "snap-out-able." 

Carol responds:
My apologies if I sounded heartless. (You know I'm not.) I was just
trying to state what I perceive to be facts without any attached
emotion. I wasn't considering depression (of course he was depressed
staying in 12 GP, and not exactly sane after his stay in Azkaban, but
if we're looking at motives, his motive in escaping Azkaban was murder
and revenge--not exactly commendable, right?). All I'm saying is that
 after Black chose to go after Wormtail instead of going to DD for
help, and everything that happened to him after that, from his
imprisonment in Azkaban and other people's perception of him as a
murderer to his later entrapment in his own home, is the result of
that extremely rash decision, whether he intended to kill Wormtail or
merely to confront him. One choice, one serious misjudgment, limited
his future choices and in essence, ruined his life. (The same can be
said of Snape's decision to join the Death Eaters. In many respects,
they're parallel characters or foils--more on that later.)

Carol earlier:
> > The responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.
> 
> SSSusan:
> Again, this strikes me as harsh.

Carol responds:
Why harsh? If it wasn't his own choice, whose choice was it? I'm not
excusing Bellatrix for killing him or Voldemort for sending the DEs to
the MoM or Kreacher for tricking him. I'm not blaming poor Harry, who
thought he was doing the right thing. But Sirius *chose* to go to the
MoM and *chose* to behave recklessly while fighting Bellatrix. Had he
chosen to wait for Dumbledore as Snape told him to do, he would be
alive. I'm not saying it was the "wrong" thing to do; it was certainly
in character for him to join the others rather than sitting around
wishing he could join them. I'm just asking how his motivation for
going to the MoM, whether to help Harry or just to get out of the
house and *do* something, changes the fact that if he hadn't gone to
the MoM, he wouldn't have died.

SSS:
> Sirius made CHOICES.  He chose to escape from Azkaban and go after
Wormtail.  He chose to return to London when Harry began exhibiting
disturbing signs of Voldy's influence/presence.  He chose to galavant
about as Padfoot when it wasn't wise.  He chose to remain in his 
family home, which he despised, so that he could be near Harry and
hopefully be useful to the Order somehow.  He chose to be uncivil to 
Snape & to threaten him when provoked.  He chose to go to the MoM 
when the rest of the available Order members took off to help the DA
kids.  These *were* all choices... 

Carol responds:
Exactly. That was my point.

SSS:
but why were they made?  They  were, imo, choices influenced by
situation, personality characteristics, hatred for the Dark Arts and
concern for Harry.

Carol responds:
Okay. But they nevertheless shaped his circumstances. That's one of
the main themes of the book. Choices and actions have consequences,
and good intentions often backfire, as do bad ones. I agree that
personality characteristics affected his choices, including reckless
courage, a desire for action, and a rash disregard for consequences. I
think we all agree that he never fully grew up. JKR says as much
herself. And he can't endure boredom. As a boy, he wanted James to
entertain him by hexing Severus and entertained himself by arranging
for Severus to encounter a werewolf. As a man, having endured twelve
years in Azkaban, he first seeks vengeance on Wormtail and then tries
to help Harry, both (IMO) out of loyalty to James, the one person who
was ever really important to him. But in the end, just as Barty Jr.
chose his own circumstances ("Look what that man chose to make of his
life," as DD says), Sirius Black shaped his own fate through exactly
the choices you outline above.

SSS:
<snip> My point?  That if we're going to judge one character as having
"made the bed in which he lies," then we ought to judge others the
same way.  And while it's *easier* to judge Sirius because the picture
is clearer and his life is over, hasn't Snape made the bed in which he
lies just as much as ? perhaps more than? ? Sirius did? <snip>

Carol responds:
Of course! I never said that he didn't. It's just that, as you said in
the portion of your response that I snipped, Snape's motivations are
mysterious whereas Black's really aren't. Snape's (bad) decisions to
join the DEs and report the Prophecy to Voldemort, as well as his
(good) decisions to spy for Dumbledore and remain at Hogwarts, have
shaped his circumstances. And now, with the decisions he made in HBP
(to teach DADA and face the curse, to take the UV for whatever reason,
to kill Dumbledore but save Draco), he's facing the consequences of
*all* those cumulative choices. He's lying on the bed of nails that he
made for himself, in a position roughly comparable to Sirius Black's
after Black's escape from Azkaban but without the consolation of being
innocent. Defending either man's choices doesn't undo the fact that he
made those choices or that choices have consequences.

Carol, who never wanted to make SSS angry and apologizes again for any
feelings she may have stepped on in posting her opinions about SB







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 18:47:41 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:47:41 -0000
Subject: Sirius' situation his own fault? WASRe: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkavm0+oon7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkb1kd+4g5p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142427

> SSSusan again:
> And there's another issue as well, methinks.  Sirius sat at Azkaban 
> for 12 years, during which time DD apparently never once visited or 
> contacted Sirius to get his account of the GH affair/murder of 
PP/12 
> muggles.  That is, if we believe that DD was as surprised as anyone 
> else at the end of PoA to discover the truth about Peter's betrayal 
> and Sirius' innocence, then he never made such an effort.  
> 
> If I'd been Sirius, knowing that DD "didn't care enough" [that's 
how 
> I'd *feel* anyway] to come ASK me what had happened, I'd be 
reluctant 
> to go running to him straight off myself.



Alla:

The funny thing is that I don't see Dumbledore doing it for some 
malicious, or Puppet!Master Dumbledore reasons at all. I think that 
JKR simply needed Sirius in prison till PoA, period.

But I do think that Dumbledore's character suffers because of it. I 
mean, really Dumbledore who is always, always giving people second 
chances would not go to one of his former students, who was also one 
of the Order Members to check up his account of events, to use some 
Legilimency, maybe, just in case something went wrong?

I would think that Dumbledore had no problem getting to Azkaban if 
needed, especially if he decided to visit Sirius during Fudge's 
reign, since we do know that up to Voldemort's return Fudge held 
Dumbledore in a very high regard and I speculate that he would have 
agreed to give Dumbledore the little favor, if asked.

Lucianam:
About Snape, funnily I don't think he was much to blame. He was 
> Sirius's 'enemy', and whatever he said made Sirius pissed and 
> uneasy, maybe even contributed to his wish to leave the house and 
go 
> to the MOM, but I don't think it added much to his depression.
> 
> I think what Sirius's friends - The Order - didn't do had more 
> weight. 

Alla:

Right, since I am incorporating it into other post, I think I can say 
that I actually agree with you.

Whatever I may think of Snape/Sirius relationship, I do NOT blame 
Snape for starting Sirius' depression ( amounting to it - maybe, 
betraying Sirius to Voldemort - could be :-), but this is a topic for 
different post).

Snape indeed has no obligation to help Sirius as a person ( I mean, I 
would argue that any decent person should, but they indeed have a 
history), so while I would prefer Snape to shut his mouth, IF this is 
the only thing he wronged Sirius with in OOP, I don't blame him much.

I think Snape owes Sirius a loyalty as a fellow Order member, but 
nothing more than that.

But Dumbledore? Yes, I think he owed Sirius something more than Snape 
did. I would say that he should have known Sirius better and simply 
helped him to occupate himself with something useful.

As SSSusan said, Sirius is a DOer, and inaction is an absolute worst 
thing, which could happen to him.


I don't think this makes Dumbledore evil, by the way. Just again 
handling the situation in not a good way, IMO.


JMO,

Alla







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 18:52:56 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:52:56 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkb0qk+eao8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkb1u8+4gm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142428

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

> Carol responds:
> My apologies if I sounded heartless. (You know I'm not.) I was just
> trying to state what I perceive to be facts without any attached
> emotion. I wasn't considering depression (of course he was depressed
> staying in 12 GP, and not exactly sane after his stay in Azkaban, 
> but if we're looking at motives, his motive in escaping Azkaban was 
> murder and revenge--not exactly commendable, right?).

PoA, p. 371 (American HB):

"But then I saw Peter in that picture...I realized he was at Hogwarts 
with Harry...perfectly positioned to act, if one hint reached his 
ears that the Dark Side was gathering enough strength again..."

"...ready to strike at the moment he could be sure of allies...and to 
deliver the last Potter to them.  If he gave them Harry, who'd dare 
say he'd betrayed Lord Voldemort?"

That looks like eminently sensible and commendable motive given 
Sirius' utterly unique knowledge of events, methinks.  That's not 
just a blood and revenge motivation there; it's the imperative of a 
man who knows things that no one else does, but also doesn't know who 
(if anyone) can be trusted, being as he's been pretty let down 
(objectively, in terms of sheer fact) by those who he 'should' have 
gone to.


> One choice, one serious misjudgment, limited his future choices and 
> in essence, ruined his life. (The same can be said of Snape's 
> decision to join the Death Eaters. In many respects, they're 
> parallel characters or foils--more on that later.)

If we want to be reductionist in our plotting of events, we can pull 
most things in history back to one pivotal point.  (Alexander doesn't 
die, then Octavian doesn't take over Egypt--to give a specious 
example.)  But it's really quite reductionist, and I think that's 
what people have been objecting to.  There are so many points where 
other influences come into play and tip the scale.  It's like a 
chaotic system that changes along the way, so that many 'initial 
conditions' tip into it. 

Otherwise, we're just reading the story of how things have spun out 
inexorably and unchangably from certain foundational events.  I know 
that it's possible to read everything in the books as this kind of 
straightforward reaction, but I think we're having to chop off a lot 
to do it that way.  IMO, I'd say we're actually being *discouraged* 
from reading the books this way.  This isn't cold hard brutal realist 
determinist literature here.
 
> Carol responds:
> Of course! I never said that he didn't. It's just that, as you said 
> in the portion of your response that I snipped, Snape's motivations 
> are mysterious whereas Black's really aren't. 

Yes--it's so very easy, far easier indeed, to be sympathetic to 
someone who you don't really know about than to someone who you do.

I find it a fascinating process to see how people read and fill in 
the blanks, especially when there's so much of a chance of any and 
all filling in being completely and utterly wrong.  [There's a crow 
buffet ready for all of us in a few years.  Picking the bones out 
first is a good idea.]  It means, at minimum, that we have to be far 
more contingent and diplomatic for the unknowns if we want to be fair.

-Nora ponders the inappropriateness of the word 'certainly' in so 
many posts...






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov  2 19:09:39 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:09:39 -0000
Subject: Sirius' situation his own fault? WASRe: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkb1kd+4g5p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkb2tj+5n7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142429

 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> The funny thing is that I don't see Dumbledore doing it for some 
> malicious, or Puppet!Master Dumbledore reasons at all. I think that 
> JKR simply needed Sirius in prison till PoA, period.
> 
> But I do think that Dumbledore's character suffers because of it. I 
> mean, really Dumbledore who is always, always giving people second 
> chances would not go to one of his former students, who was also one 
> of the Order Members to check up his account of events, to use some 
> Legilimency, maybe, just in case something went wrong?
> 

Pippin:
I think you're forgetting that Sirius was already under suspicion as a 
spy before Godric's Hollow, and Dumbledore must have already questioned
him intensively. With the testimony of  eyewitnesses to condemn him
and since JKR has told us there is no foolproof way to extract the
truth from a powerful and unwilling wizard, how could Dumbledore have
known whether Sirius was telling the truth or not? 

>From what Dumbledore says,  it was Harry's patronus that convinced him that 
Sirius's story of how they became animagi had to be true. I doubt he would
ever have believed that Peter was an animagus without it.

Pippin






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  2 19:20:08 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:20:08 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkb0qk+eao8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkb3h8+uj0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142430

Carol earlier:
> > > Black has made the bed that he's lying in.
 
SiriuslySnapeySusan, also earlier:
> > Wow.  That seems a rather heartless assessment to me.   

Carol responded:
> My apologies if I sounded heartless. (You know I'm not.)

SSSusan:
Indeed, I do.  Which explains my "Wow" opening. ;-)  


Carol:
> I was just trying to state what I perceive to be facts without any 
> attached emotion. 

SSSusan:
Okay.  You're saying you intended this as an emotion-free 
evaluation.  Whereas I took it as a strong judgment, one which seemed 
to me to ignore some important situational & motivational aspects of 
things, as well as some of the humanness of the character.  But 
perhaps that was my problem in how I interpreted what you were doing.


Carol:
> I wasn't considering depression (of course he was depressed
> staying in 12 GP, and not exactly sane after his stay in Azkaban, 
> but if we're looking at motives, his motive in escaping Azkaban was 
> murder and revenge--not exactly commendable, right?). 

SSSusan:
Actually... that's not how I see it at all!  Yes, he was hellbent on 
getting out of Azkaban, he was determined to do whatever was 
necessary to stop Pettigrew.  HOWEVER, what I saw as the motive was 
**protecting Harry.**

Consider that, to that moment, Sirius didn't know anything about 
Pettigrew's still being alive.  Suddenly, when Fudge provides him 
with that newspaper & photograph, he has evidence staring him in the 
face that Pettigrew is alive AND CLOSE TO HARRY.  This changes 
everything!  And he's the only person who would: 1) recognize the 
evidence of PP as Wormtail; and 2) understand that that could mean 
imminent danger for Harry. IOW, he's the only one who can do anything 
about this.

So, to a person wracked by guilt, despondent, stuck in Azkaban for 12 
years, he suddenly sees a place where he's NEEDED, where he can take 
action, where he can help his godson.  At least, that's how I read 
his motivation.  Sure, vengeance might have been a part of it, but 
the way the actions played out, I felt it spoke much more to Sirius' 
desire to protect Harry.


Carol:
> All I'm saying is that after Black chose to go after Wormtail 
> instead of going to DD for help, and everything that happened to 
> him after that, from his imprisonment in Azkaban and other people's 
> perception of him as a murderer to his later entrapment in his own 
> home, is the result of that extremely rash decision, whether he 
> intended to kill Wormtail or merely to confront him. One choice, 
> one serious misjudgment, limited his future choices and in essence, 
> ruined his life. (The same can be said of Snape's decision to join 
> the Death Eaters. In many respects, they're parallel characters or 
> foils--more on that later.)

SSSusan:
Yup.  Sucks, doesn't it?  You're right ? those two choices had 
tremendous impact on both men's futures.  Of course, in Sirius' 
situation, I see little option.  As I wrote in 142425:

"Sirius sat at Azkaban for 12 years, during which time DD apparently 
never once visited or contacted Sirius to get his account of the GH 
affair/murder of PP/12 muggles. ...If I'd been Sirius, knowing 
that... I'd be reluctant to go running to him straight off myself."

So, a choice it was to not turn to DD, but definitely a choice which 
was understandable to me.  Snape's choice to join the DEs, in 
contrast, well... we just don't yet know.  One could reasonably 
assume, I think, that it was freely entered into, but we can't be 
certain of the circumstances yet.   


Carol earlier:
> > > The responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
> > > to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.

SSSusan earlier:
> > Again, this strikes me as harsh.
 
Carol responded:
> Why harsh? If it wasn't his own choice, whose choice was it? <snip> 
> I'm just asking how his motivation for going to the MoM, whether to 
> help Harry or just to get out of the house and *do* something, 
> changes the fact that if he hadn't gone to the MoM, he wouldn't 
> have died.

SSSusan:
Definitely to go to the MoM was his own choice in the end, though I 
think it's useful to consider what *contributed* to that choice.  I 
guess the statement read to me as "too boiled down" to a judgment:  
Wasted Life/His Own Fault.  

I saw so much *potential* in Sirius (yep, I liked him, so I would).  
I saw a series of unfortunate things happening, some a result of his 
own rashness & choice, some not.  But I also saw the ways in which he 
tried to help, the hope he held out to Harry, his love for Harry.  
And none of that could I boil down to "a wasted life."  His LOSING 
his life felt like a waste to me, yes, but his life itself I would 
not have described as wasted.  (If that distinction makes any sense??)


SSSusan earlier:
> > <snip> My point?  That if we're going to judge one character as 
> > having "made the bed in which he lies," then we ought to judge 
> > others the same way.  And while it's *easier* to judge Sirius 
> > because the picture is clearer and his life is over, hasn't Snape 
> > made the bed in which he lies just as much as ? perhaps more 
> > than? ? Sirius did? <snip>
 
Carol responded:
> Of course! I never said that he didn't. It's just that, as you said 
> in the portion of your response that I snipped, Snape's motivations 
> are mysterious whereas Black's really aren't. Snape's (bad) 
> decisions to join the DEs and report the Prophecy to Voldemort, as 
> well as his (good) decisions to spy for Dumbledore and remain at 
> Hogwarts, have shaped his circumstances. And now, with the 
> decisions he made in HBP (to teach DADA and face the curse, to take 
> the UV for whatever reason, to kill Dumbledore but save Draco), 
> he's facing the consequences of *all* those cumulative choices. 
> He's lying on the bed of nails that he made for himself, in a 
> position roughly comparable to Sirius Black's after Black's escape 
> from Azkaban but without the consolation of being innocent. 
> Defending either man's choices doesn't undo the fact that he
> made those choices or that choices have consequences.

SSSusan:
Hey, we're seeing things much more closely here than I thought we 
were.  I have no objection to these statements.  

What I was concerned about was what I've seen of some folks 
*excusing* a type of behavior in one character while *damning* the 
same type of behavior in another.  If characters are being looked at 
in similar lights, under similar microscopes, rather than trying to 
build one up or push one down by despising something in one and 
ignoring it in the other, I think it's more useful and fruitful and 
*fair* is all.  

 
> Carol, who never wanted to make SSS angry and apologizes again for 
> any feelings she may have stepped on in posting her opinions about 
> SB

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who never was angry, just curious  









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 19:43:56 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:43:56 -0000
Subject: Possessing the possessor, not Horcrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <dk8kge+h6jm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkb4ts+n7ic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142431

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:
> Carol responds:
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> I see absolutely no reason why Harry should be a Horcrux, and
> consequently, no reason for Harry to sacrifice himself to save
> the WW. All he needs is some way to use the power of Love to 
> destroy Voldemort. ...
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> What he [Voldemort] ...transferred to Harry, as we're told by 
> Dumbledore in CoS, is some of his *powers* (plural) in the 
> sense of the magical abilities that Harry now shares with LV
> ...But clearly his (Harry's) ability to speak Parseltongue is 
> not part of this genetic magical inheritance: that specific 
> power (magical ability) is acquiredfrom Voldemort--not a part 
> of Voldemort's soul, ..., but a part of Voldemort's genetic 
> inheritance from *his* parents, ...
> 
> ...edited..
> 
> But what about the one power that remained to Voldemort after 
> he was vaporized, the one power he could wield without a wand? 
> Suppose that Harry has acquired the power of Possession along 
> with the ability to speak Parseltongue ...?
> 
> We know that Voldemort can no longer possess Harry, but what if
> Harry possesses Voldemort? What better way for the Love Harry
> supposedly represents to enter Voldemort's mind, destroying him
> ...? And how fitting for Harry to turn Voldemort's own powers 
> against him without stooping to casting an Unforgiveable Curse.
> 
> And instead of being a passive instrument of destruction who must
> himself be destroyed, Harry can actively wield the power of
> possession as no one else in the WW can.
> 
> Carol, hoping that this idea provides a viable alternative to Harry
> the Horcrux

bboyminn:

Responding with acknowledgements to both Carol and to CH3ed (M.
Thitathan).

Here I thought I was the only one who believed Harry had the power of
Possession. I've thought this for a long time, but the book doesn't
really support it; that I can remember, none of the books have even
dropped the slightest clue that Harry might have this ability.

Further, how would Harry even find out he has this power? How would he
even know to apply it, if he hasn't previously discovered it. Even
more so, all his resources for discovering the power of possession
have dried up. Sirius is dead, Dumbledore is dead, if not them, the
who? I can't imagine Ron or Hermione suddenly saying to Harry, 'What
do you say Harry, see if you can possess me'. I suppose Lupin could
come forward in the story and take over the role as wise mentor and
friend, but again, what on earth would ever make Lupin think that
Harry could possess anyone?

Still, I believe it and I always have. I could picture the final
struggle between Harry as a test of wills very much like the
Brother-Wand-connection in GoF. In the Final Battle, Voldemort has
Harry down and weak, as a last gesture of dominance or perhaps to gain
the upper hand in battle or perhaps to protect himself as he did in
OotP, Voldemort possesses Harry. Harry fights the possession with
every ounce of strength he has, he is determined to not be controlled
and to win, even though the odds are massively against him. In the
struggle to throw off Voldemort's possession, Harry accidently turns
the tables and possesses Voldemort. Now we have a true test of wills,
purely good against evil, and no room for outside intervention, no
room for the cavalry to come riding over the hill to save the day, no
place for fancy spellwork or curses. It's Harry and Voldemort, good
and evil, locked in a struggle to the end. 

As an odd side note: Try to imagine what that would look like; Harry
and Voldemort struggling to possess each other. First Voldemort enters
Harry, and we see Harry struggling against the invasion. Then Harry
takes control, and where we once saw Harry, we now see Voldemort. Then
Voldemort gets control, and we see Harry, then Voldemort, then Harry,
then Voldemort again. Pretty freaky scene if you ask me.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of Harry
sacrificing himself. I could fit this in very nicely with my
speculation that the final battle will occur in front of the Veiled
Archway of Death. I could speculate that while Harry may dominate and
possess Voldemort, that doesn't solve the problem. Somehow Voldemort
has to be destroyed. I could picture Harry taking control and dragging
himself and Voldemort along with him through the Veiled Archway. 

Extending my Veiled Archway thoughts, I'm not totally convinced that
if Harry goes through the Veil, he will not come out. We've discussed
this before and there is mythology for people going 'beyond the Veil'
and returning. I could live with Voldemort being dragged down to Hell
by the spirits of those he killed, meanwhile, Harry meets Sirius, his
parents, and Dumbledore and after a few tearful hugs, his parents tell
him it's not his time and that he has to go back, back to the land of
the living. 

I know that was a lot of talking to say not much more than 'I agree',
but I do agree and I always have. Despite no hints in the books, I've
alway believe we would discover that this was a power that Harry had.

Don't know what it's worth, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn







From easimm at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 21:33:32 2005
From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:33:32 -0000
Subject: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives?
In-Reply-To: <djucrr+8fa7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbbbc+stcs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142432

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
(in message 142252)
> In other words, the Prophecy doesn't force anybody to do anything. BUT
> Voldemort's BELIEF in the prophecy does. His belief compells Voldemort
> to act, and that action will plague Harry until either he or Voldemort
> are dead.
 Does that help the discussion at all?
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Snorky responds to Steve:
Yes, thanks for that, except that LV seems to be lacking in
understanding of prophesies, which is strange since that's almost all
he's been concerned about for years. I suppose the answer to my
question, "Is there anything really keeping them from leading separate
lives? is probably NO.

Steve wrote: 
> HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN!

Snorky replies:
Yes, I bet JKR will make all our little theories look like 2-year
olds' fingerpaintings. I hope we aren't disappointed.

Thanks for your reply!
-Snorky







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 21:31:56 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:31:56 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkb3h8+uj0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbb8c+qfsm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142433

SSSusan <snip>:
> Yes, he was hellbent on getting out of Azkaban, he was determined to
do whatever was necessary to stop Pettigrew.  HOWEVER, what I saw as
the motive was **protecting Harry.**
> 
> Consider that, to that moment, Sirius didn't know anything about
Pettigrew's still being alive.  Suddenly, when Fudge provides him with
that newspaper & photograph, he has evidence staring him in the face
that Pettigrew is alive AND CLOSE TO HARRY.  This changes everything!
 And he's the only person who would: 1) recognize the evidence of PP
as Wormtail; and 2) understand that that could mean imminent danger
for Harry. IOW, he's the only one who can do anything about this.
<snip>

Carol responds:
I snipped the rest of your post because, as you say, we actually agree
on most of those points. But I see his motives for escaping from
Azkaban rather differently than you (and Nora) do.

Yes, he didn't know anything about Pettigrew still being alive, but
surely he suspected it knowing that PP was a rat Animagus. wouldn't he
have suspected that PP had blown up the street (and killed the
Muggles) as a means of escaping (and framing SB) rather than a
terrorist-style murder-suicide? I can't believe that he actually
thought PP was dead. He would have heard, I think, that only PP's
finger was found. In fact he says himself that PP "blew apart the
street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone within twenty
feet of himself--and sped down the sewer with the other rats" (PoA Am.
ed. 363). So it seems clear that he did know that PP was alive and in
hiding. And he would have had numerous reasons for wanting revenge,
most of which he stated in the Shrieking Shack: PP's betrayal of the
Potters, their deaths, his own imprisonment without a trial as a
result of being framed. He states himself that he escaped in order to
perform the murder he'd been arrested for.

As for helping Harry, it's true that he was Harry's godfather, but he
last saw him as a fifteen-month-old baby and he doesn't really know
him. And his statements about wanting to help Harry (quoted by Nora
upthread) are made *to Harry* after he's met him. It's possible to
have more than one motive or reason for any action, and I think that
Black is giving a secondary motive in place of a primary one when he
claims that he's acting for Harry's sake. If he wanted justice rather
than vengeance, he would have wanted Lupin to hand Scabbers over to
Fudge and prove that he was really PP, which in turn would prove his
own innocence. Instead, both he and Lupin opt for "vigilante justice"
(aka murder) and are only prevented from their vengeance on PP by
Harry's interference.

Moreover, Black's actions, which as DD says, are not those of an
innocent man, endanger the students and terrify Ron. Twice he either
breaks into the school or enters it using one of the secret passages
on the Marauder's Map (BTW, I'm a bit confused about how he gets in
because there's no direct entry from the Shrieking Shack). He
furiously slashes the painting of the Fat Lady and then does the same
to Ron's bedcurtains, so that a helpless thirteen-year-old boy is face
to face with a man with a twelve-inch knife. (Imagine Ron's horror if
he had actually murdered Ron's pet rat with that knife.) And he later,
in dog form, seizes Ron by the arm and drags him into the Shrieking
Shack, even though the terrified boy has broken his leg trying to
protect himself. Black's very presence endangers the students by
exposing them to the Dementors. But he seems oblivious to all the
terror and pain he's causing (including the Dementors targeting
Harry). He's bent on vengeance against the "cringing bit of filth" who
valued "his own stinking skin" over the Potters' lives (375).

Yes, he cares about the Potters, and secondarily about their orphaned
son, but his first concern for much of the Shrieking Shack scene is to
avenge their betrayal and murder, not to protect Harry from the danger
of Wormtail's presence. (He knows full well that Wormtail is lazy and
cowardly, more interested in saving his own skin than in returning to
his master.)

"'There'll only be one murder here tonight,' said Black, and his grin
widened" (PoA Am. ed. 340).

"But Black's free hand had found Harry's throat. 'No,' he hissed.
'I've waited too long--'" (340).

"'Peter Pettigrew's *dead*!' said Harry. '*He* killed him twelve years
ago!' He pointed at Black, whose face twitched convulsively.
"'I meant to, he growled, his yellow teeth bared, 'but little Peter
got the better of me. . . not this time, though!'" (349)

"'Sirius, NO!' Lupin yelled, launching himself forwards and dragging
Black away from Ron again, 'WAIT! You can't do it just like that--they
need to understand--we've got to explain--'
"'We can explain afterwards!' snarled black, trying to throw Lupin
off. One hand was still clawing the air as it tried to reach Scabbers,
who was squealing like a piglet. . . ." (349-50).

"'And now you've come to finish him off!' [yelled Harry].
"'Yes, I have,' said Black, with an evil look at Scabbers" (364).

I could go on, but you get the idea. Now granted, JKR is showing Black
in the worst light here, from Harry's POV, but his words and actions
suggest (to me) a fierce and furious desire for vengeance rather than
godfatherly concern for Harry, whose throat he has seized. It's only
after Lupin has explained part of the story (and Snape has interrupted
and been knocked unconscious) that Black starts behaving calmly and
explains about the photo in the Daily Prophet. At that point he states
his motive as concern for Harry.

At any rate, I see Black's primary motive for escaping from Azkaban as
the desire to commit the murder for which he was arrested, and that
desire drives him to behave like a homicidal maniac through much of
PoA, completely unconcerned by the terror he inspires in the Hogwarts
students and particularly Ron. How, exactly, would murdering Pettigrew
 have helped Harry? Would it have restored his lost godfather to him?
No. It would have sent Black to Azkaban, possibly in the company of
his friend Lupin, the co-murderer, and it would most likely have led
to Black being de-souled by the Dementors and Harry being none the
wiser regarding his motives. It's only the presence of Lupin, who
forces him to wait until their story is told, and Harry's insistence
that they turn Pettigrew over to the authorities that saves Black from
this fate. (Pettigrew's escape, while relevant to the main plot, is
irrelevant to the question of Black's motives.)

Carol, who couldn't find page numbers for two of the references but
knows they're there somewhere







From RoxyElliot at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 21:40:21 2005
From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:40:21 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
Message-ID: <fd.1ffb180f.309a8c45@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142434

 
 
I think Sirius was prepared to die protecting Harry at some point.   I'd even 
go so far as to say that he planned to, although not necessarily at the  
Ministry.  Sirius believed that he as good as killed James and Lily.   From his 
perspective the only way to right that wrong was to die to save  their only 
child.  IMO even if he hadn't died at the Ministry he would have  sacrificed 
himself somewhere else sooner rather than later.
 
 
In a message dated 11/2/2005 12:26:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Nanagose at aol.com writes:

With  hindsight, we know that Sirius would not have died if he
had not been at  the MoM, but I don't see any reason to believe that he
was targeted  specifically during the battle.  Any of the Order members
could have  died in the MoM- the fact that Sirius was the one who did
does not support  the thought that he shouldn't have been there in the
first  place.

Christina





Roxanne
http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 21:57:56 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:57:56 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkbb8c+qfsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbcp4+rk6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142436

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
> As for helping Harry, it's true that he was Harry's godfather, but 
he
> last saw him as a fifteen-month-old baby and he doesn't really know
> him. And his statements about wanting to help Harry (quoted by Nora
> upthread) are made *to Harry* after he's met him. It's possible to
> have more than one motive or reason for any action, and I think that
> Black is giving a secondary motive in place of a primary one when he
> claims that he's acting for Harry's sake. 

Alla:

What do you mean? Are you saying that since Sirius have not seen 
Harry for years, he would have stopped loving him and for some reason 
that makes his claim that he wanted to protect Harry less truthful? 
If so, I disagree. I have a niece who is  seven months old now. I 
love her very much obviously, and if by some unlucky circumstances I 
will not be able to see her for several years, I sincerely doubt that 
I would love her any less and would want to protect her any less 
after those years.

Sirius saw Harry when he was born, he obviously visited Potters when 
Harry was a baby. Harry is a child of a friend, whom Sirius loved 
like a brother. I'd say that Sirius had more than enough legitimate 
reasons wanting to protect Harry and as JKR herself said his love and 
affection for Harry is Sirius' greatest redeeming quality.


Carol: 
> Moreover, Black's actions, which as DD says, are not those of an
> innocent man, endanger the students and terrify Ron. <SNIP>And he 
later,
> in dog form, seizes Ron by the arm and drags him into the Shrieking
> Shack, even though the terrified boy has broken his leg trying to
> protect himself. Black's very presence endangers the students by
> exposing them to the Dementors. But he seems oblivious to all the
> terror and pain he's causing (including the Dementors targeting
> Harry). 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Erm... Dumbledore also " gave evidence" that Sirius was a Secret 
Keeper. So, I hope that Dumbledore meant to say that Sirius' actions 
were actions of severely traumatised man, otherwise, I simply have to 
say that Dumbledore was wrong in this situation.

And I beg to differ on Sirius' being oblivious to the pain he caused. 
I think it is amazing that so soon after being in hiding and feeling 
a little bit better, he thought of giving an Owl to Ron. To me it was 
obviously an apology.

JMO,

Alla






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 22:00:26 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:00:26 -0000
Subject: Sirius' situation his own fault? WASRe: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkb1kd+4g5p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbctq+6act@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142437

 
> Alla:
> 
> The funny thing is that I don't see Dumbledore doing it for some 
> malicious, or Puppet!Master Dumbledore reasons at all. I think 
that 
> JKR simply needed Sirius in prison till PoA, period.
> 
> But I do think that Dumbledore's character suffers because of it. 
I 
> mean, really Dumbledore who is always, always giving people second 
> chances would not go to one of his former students, who was also 
one 
> of the Order Members to check up his account of events, to use 
some 
> Legilimency, maybe, just in case something went wrong?
<snip> 

a_svirn:

Frankly, I don't see it. James tuned down Dumbledore's offer and 
told him that he wouldn't have anyone but Sirius for a secret-
keeper. Then he went and took Pettigrew instead. Blessed as was 
Dumbledore with the extraordinary brainpower how could he guess that 
James and Sirius would come up with such a harebrained plan? 







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 22:49:45 2005
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:49:45 -0000
Subject: Harrycrux again (was: Why can't Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <dk2qcg+fs67@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbfqa+idod@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142438

> Elfundeb:
> >  I'm not going to give chapter and verse here on how this connection
> > supports the Harrycrux theory, because I'm sure it was done over 
> the summer
> > while I was away, but will do so if asked.
> 
> Potioncat:
> Please do.
> To be honest, I skimmed over the Harrycrux threads and the missing 
> horcrux threads. So I'd like to see a good post about the ideas. You 
> know, a couple of scolls of parchment...by Monday morning? :-)
>

Neri:
Don't look at me, I ain't volunteering <g>. But I thought I'll make
Debbie's homework easier by organizing my own thought in this matter,
which are currently hopelessly scattered across many posts, and add a
few new ideas (or new to me, at any rate).

OK, so why Harrycrux?

1. Thematic reason: the series starts with Lily defeating Voldemort
with the ultimate sacrifice. The end of the series should top that,
and it should be the hero who vanquishes Voldy himself. Ergo, the hero
is likely to sacrifice himself. As Debbie wrote, this doesn't
necessarily mean that Harry must be dead by the end of the series. JKR
may be planning on a way to save him (see my idea below) but before
that he must be ready for the ultimate sacrifice himself.

2. Another thematic reason: since the very first book (the sorting
scene) JKR has been playing the theme of the similarity between Harry
and Voldy, with only their different choices to make them opposites.
Sharing a soul would be the logical way of bringing this theme to its
natural culmination. 

3. The suspense factor: JKR hints all the time that she might kill
Harry. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that she will, but that
she wants us to be very unsure what's going to happen when Harry
finally reaches the moment of truth. We are all sure that Voldy *will*
be vanquished by the end of the series, but we must not be sure Harry
will come out of it alive. We see this well-calculated ambivalence
also in the prophecy words "either must die by the hand of the other". 

4. Plot reason: According to Dumbledore in CoS, Voldy "transferred
some of his powers" to Harry" when he failed to kill him. This was an
extremely unlikely occurrence that, as Valky mentioned, must be
explained by the end of the series. Until now we weren't given any
possible mechanism for transferring magical powers, neither by a
failed AK nor by any other means, so JKR can supply this mechanism
only in Book 7, and this would be slightly deus-ex-machina. It
wouldn't be good mystery writing. OTOH, JKR did supply us with a
mechanism for *soul* transfer, and this mechanism seems to include the
powers in the bargain (Diary!Riddle can speak Parseltongue). This
*would* be good mystery writing.

5. Another plot reason: Same as 4, but with the mind link. This also
happened as if by miracle at Godric's Hollow, and no mechanism was
ever supplied in the series for such a mind link to be created. In
addition, until now JKR has kept the mind link completely separated
from the powers transfer, and yet it defies logic that *two* such
unexplained miracles would happen independently at GH. We probably
need one reason to explain both the mind link and the power transfer.
Again, sharing souls would do that.

6. Canon clue: when Harry first sees the name T.M. Riddle in the
diary, we are told: 

********************************************************
CoS, Ch. 13, pp. 233-234
Harry couldn't explain, even to himself, why he didn't just throw
Riddle's diary away. The fact was that even though he knew the diary
was blank, he kept absentmindedly picking it up and turning the pages,
as though it were a story he wanted to finish. And while Harry was
sure he had never heard the name T. M. Riddle before, it still seemed
to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd
had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten.
********************************************************

Big clue there, IMO, and there's also the fact that Harry destroys the
diary by stabbing it with the basilisk fang "without thinking, without
considering, as though he had meant to do it all along" (ibid, Ch. 17,
p. 322). It seems that a part of Harry knows about T.M. Riddle and
destroying Hxs much than it should. 

7. Speculation developing thematic point 2: many list members
(including myself) wondered in the past why Dumbledore could never be
bothered with teaching Harry any useful skill (the only exception for
that were the occlumency lessons, which were given by Snape, not
Dumbledore himself, and were a "fiasco"). This seems unbelievable to
me. If you were the greatest wizard in the world, and you had in your
hands the boy who is the only one who can vanquish the Dark Lord,
wouldn't you personally make sure to teach him any skill that might
prove important? Even Ron and Hermione wonder in HBP what advanced
magic will Dumbledore teach Harry in those "private lessons", but
Dumbledore never taught Harry any magic. Was this because Dumbledore
took the prophecy words "mark him as his *equal*" seriously? Perhaps
Dumbledore suspected that Harry already has all of Voldemort's powers.
Dumbledore wasn't afraid that Harry will find himself powerless and
weaponless against Voldemort. On the contrary ? he was afraid Harry
has *too much* power, and not only the powers, but the soul to use
them. As any LotR fan knows well, the greatest danger in vanquishing
Dark Lords is becoming a Dark Lord yourself.

8. Which brings us to the talk at the end of OotP. "Harry, suffering
like this proves that you are still a man! This pain is part of being
human," says Dumbledore. Why would Dumbledore seek a proof that Harry
is still human? Was Harry in danger of turning into something inhuman?

9. Perhaps Dumbledore was suspecting that there's a war inside Harry.
If the Voldy soul piece gets the upper hand ? Game Over, You Loose.
But if, as Valky (I think) suggested, Voldy's soul part is "redeemed"
by being assimilated into Harry's soul, it might lose its connection
with its original master, and thus stop being a functioning Hx. Which
brings me to the disturbing words JKR chose in HBP to describe Harry's
new crush on Ginny: 

********************************************************
HBP, Ch. 14, p. 286 (US)
It was as though something large and scaly erupted into life in
Harry's stomach, clawing at his insides: Hot blood seemed to flood his
brain, so that all thought was extinguished, replaced by a savage urge
to jinx Dean into a jelly. Wrestling with this sudden madness, he
heard Ron's voice as though from a great distance away. 
********************************************************

In case we miss the "something large and scaly", JKR makes sure to
call it a "monster" several lines later:

********************************************************
Ibid, p. 287:
Dean was looking embarrassed. He gave Harry a shifty grin that Harry
did not return, as the newborn monster inside him was roaring for
Dean's instant dismissal from the team.
********************************************************


and again, just in case you still haven't got it:

********************************************************
Ibid:
"He doesn't mean anything, Ginny ?" said Harry automatically, though
the monster was roaring its approval of Ron's word.
********************************************************

This "monster" is not only jealous of Dean, it also likes Ginny. And
it can purr too, which is good news, and yet it's still a "monster": 

********************************************************
Ibid, p. 289:
But unbidden into his mind came an image of that same deserted
corridor with himself kissing Ginny instead... The monster in his
chest purred...
********************************************************

When Harry's chances with Ginny improve, this "monster" is downgraded
to a "creature":

********************************************************
HBP, Ch.20, p. 423 (US):
Hermione even escorted them down to breakfast, bringing with her the
news that Ginny had argued with Dean. The drowsing creature in Harry's
chest suddenly raised its head, sniffing the air hopefully.
********************************************************

Which would have been more reassuring if "sniffing the air" didn't
remind me of that part in OotP when Harry rides Nagini's mind into the
DoM and plans his attack on Arthur:

********************************************************
OotP, Ch. 21, p.462 (US):
Harry put out his tongue... he tasted the man's scent on the air...
*******************************************************

And back to HBP, here's the "creature" within Harry again:

********************************************************
HBP, Ch.24, p. 534 (US):
The creature in his chest roaring in triumph, he grinned down at Ginny
and gestured wordlessly out of the portrait hole. A long walk in the
grounds seemed indicated, during which ? if they had time ? they might
discuss the match.
********************************************************

No, the creature word isn't reassuring at all. It was also used
several times when Voldemort tried to possess Harry in the MoM. For
example:

********************************************************
OotP, Ch. 36, pp.815-816 (US):
He was locked in the coils of a creature with red eyes, so tightly
bound that Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature
begun. They were fused together, bound by pain, and there was no escape. 
********************************************************

This choice of words to describe Harry's crush is slightly disturbing,
especially remembering Diary!Tom's history with Ginny. And yet,
wouldn't it be appropriate if it's love that will redeem Voldemort's
soul part?

10. Unintentional Hx: I agree that it wouldn't be very logical for
Voldy to make Harry a Hx and immediately trying to kill him. As a
whole, it appears Voldy isn't aware at all that Harry is his Hx. But I
see a very good scenario for unintentional Hx: when he went to GH,
Voldy was planning to use Harry's murder to rip his soul, and turn
*Lily* into his Hx. This is why he tried to spare her, which JKR
recently confirmed. So maybe Voldy actually conducted the whole Dark
Hx spell just before raiding the Potter's house, with only the murder
and the living Hx itself still required. Then Lily proved too
difficult to control and he AKed her, deciding he'd better use Nagini
instead. His soul was thus nicely ripped when the rebounded curse hit
him, and when he lost his body the extra soul part found its way
through the open gash on the baby's forehead. This scenario would
explain about half a dozen big mysteries in one swoop.

11. The Gryffindor Hx: This is one of the mysteries the scenario above
would solve. Dumbledore thought that Voldemort would like to "complete
the set" (as Slughorn would put it) of the Four Founders Hxs, and yet
Dumbledore was very sure that the only known Gryffindor relic ? his
sword ? is safe. So if Voldy didn't manage to find a Gryffindor relic,
maybe he settled on a Gryffindor student ? namely Lily - instead? 

12. Some people argued against the above scenario that Lily would be
much too dangerous and unreliable a Hx for Voldy. But we already
hypothesize (or at least Dumbledore did) that Voldy wanted a living
Hx, and he probably imagined Lily Imperio'ed and well controlled by
his soul part, the way Ginny was controlled by the Diary.
Theoretically a Dark wizard should have a lot of control over his
living Hx. At least, Dumbledore used Voldy's control over Nagini to
support his theory that she is a Hx, so Voldy was probably expecting
to have complete control over Hx!Lily. When he realized that she won't
be easy to control, however, he did change his mind on the spot and
killed her.

13. The seventh Hx: like zgirnius I've been suspecting for some time
that Harry was originally correct: there are indeed *seven* Hxs and
*eight* soul peaces total. Voldy believed the soul part that was
ripped at GH was lost forever, and his 7Hxs project thus left
unfinished. In the graveyard he says he decided to settle on his old
body before "courting immortality again". Maybe courting immortality
again included making Nagini a living Hx. Now he is perhaps weaker
because he divided his soul once too many, and Eight isn't nearly
magical a number as Seven (well, unless you are Chinese).  

14. As Jen wrote, the most problematic part of Unintentional Harrycrux
is what Dumbledore knew and why didn't he tell Harry about all this.
But there are many possible explanations. Most of the Hxs story was
after all a one big theory of Dumbledore. While *we* have JKR's word
that "Dumbledore's guesses are never far off the mark", perhaps he
wasn't that sure of himself. Maybe he felt he should not kill Harry's
hopes to finish his quest alive because of a mere speculation. Perhaps
he thought Harry's chances to assimilate Voldy's soul piece are better
if he doesn't know about it. Perhaps he meant to tell Harry all along
but was killed before he had time to do that. Perhaps he left some
record for Harry in case he'd die, which means Aberforth is likely to
visit Harry in the beginning of Book 7 with a sealed letter or a
swirling memory inside a small bottle. I think this doesn't constitute
a big problem for the theory.


Now, I believe I've contributed my share towards a Hx!Harry
three-parts symposium <g>. I'll leave the job of cataloging all the
different theories to somebody else.

Neri










From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 23:03:20 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:03:20 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkb0qk+eao8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbgjo+c4gp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142439

> Carol earlier:
> > > The responsibility for that wasted life, like the decision to go
> to the MoM, is primarily or entirely his own.
> > 
> > SSSusan:
> > Again, this strikes me as harsh.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Why harsh? If it wasn't his own choice, whose choice was it? I'm not
> excusing Bellatrix for killing him or Voldemort for sending the DEs
> to the MoM or Kreacher for tricking him. I'm not blaming poor Harry,
> who thought he was doing the right thing. 

Christina:

Do you think that Harry's belief that he was doing the right thing
frees him from blame?  Because if that's true, I don't see how you can
blame Sirius for doing what he sees as right.

Also, interestingly enough, I *do* blame Harry for Sirius's death,
much more than I blame Sirius himself.  While I've never accepted the
idea that adults should be obeyed without question, Harry knowingly
disobeys explicit orders given by people that he trusts- Dumbledore,
Lupin, Sirius.  Harry is told again and again that, in Lupin's words,
"There is nothing so important as you learning Occlumency....Do you
understand me?  Nothing!"  He doesn't disobey them out of a feeling of
responsibility (as Sirius believes that he is responsible to help
Harry by going to the MoM).  He disobeys them out of his own
curiousity!  And if we really want to point fingers concerning
Sirius's death, I would argue that Dumbledore deserves the lion's
share of the blame (after Bellatrix and Voldemort of course, like you
said).  He assumes that Harry will take him at his word concerning
Occlumency, and never bothers to fill him in on exactly *why* it was
so important.  If Harry had known that he was vulnerable to mental
attacks from Voldemort, he would have recognized the possibility that
Voldemort could try and lure him to the MoM.  If Dumbledore had just
told him about the prophecy, Harry wouldn't have been so darn curious
about what was in the DoM.

> Carol:
> Had he chosen to wait for Dumbledore as Snape told him to do, he 
> would be alive. I'm not saying it was the "wrong" thing to 
> do; it was certainly in character for him to join the others rather
> than sitting around wishing he could join them. I'm just asking how
> his motivation for going to the MoM, whether to help Harry or just 
> to get out of the house and *do* something, changes the fact that if
> he hadn't gone to the MoM, he wouldn't have died.

Christina:

It doesn't change anything, but that isn't the point.  Let's say I
decide I'm going to go to the grocery store today, and I die in a car
accident on the way there.  If I hadn't gone to the grocery store, I
wouldn't have died, but that doesn't mean that I am responsible for my
own death.  I know that Sirius was making the choice to enter a much
more dangerous situation, but what I'm trying to say is that the fact
that Sirius died has nothing to do with the fact that he wasn't
supposed to leave the house.  Whether he made the right decision or
not doesn't matter.  One event led to the other (Sirius went to the
MoM-->Sirius died), but that doesn't mean that Sirius's choice to go
the MoM makes him responsible for his own death.

> Carol:
> I'm sure that he felt he was doing his duty and finally getting a 
> chance to help Harry and the Order, but it's unclear whether his 
> presence made any difference.

Christina:

I hesitate to get into the particulars of various what-if scenarios,
but I will throw this out there:

(OotP, Am Ed., page 803)
"Dolohov raised his wand again.  'Accio Proph-'

Sirius hurtled out of nowhere, rammed Dolohov with his shoulder, and
sent him flying out of the way.  The prophecy had again flown to the
tips of Harry's fingers but he had managed to cling to it.  Now Sirius
and Dolohov were dueling, their wands flashing like swords, sparks
flying from their wand tips"

There are also several other instances where Sirius is described as
fiercely dueling with Death Eaters.  Had Sirius not been there, the
Death Eaters that he battled would have either gone after the kids or
doubled up on another one of the Order members.  So just by the force
of sheer numbers, Sirius did contribute.

> Carol:
> And given Kreacher's remark ("Master won't return from the Ministry
> of Magic," quoted from memory) it's just possible that the DEs did 
> have a vendetta against him.

Christina:

But look at what Dumbledore says later on:

(page 829)
" 'Kreacher lied,' said Dumbledore calmly.  'You are not his master,
he could lie to you without even needing to punish himself.  Kreacher
intended you to go to the Ministry of Magic.' "

You have a point, but I think the much more likely scenario is that
Kreacher knew how to get Harry to go to the MoM- by telling him that
Sirius would die there.

> Carol, who... apologizes again for any feelings she may have stepped
> on in posting her opinions about SB

Christina:

No hurt feelings- these discussions are always good fun (and have
definitely helped me refine my own personal opinions) :)


Christina







From easimm at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 23:03:29 2005
From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:03:29 -0000
Subject: Can Harry kill LV? Was: Why can't Harry?
In-Reply-To: <dk3a42+sbt4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbgk1+bqhc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142440

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
(in message 142327)

> In general, I have a problem with Harry killing Voldemort. I could
> handle Harry causing Voldemort's death, but I'm just not sure I can
> see Harry 'bang-your-dead' flat out killing Voldemort. Is it really
> that simple? Will Harry just go, in the final moment, 'Avada 
> Kadavra'
> and Voldemort will fall over dead? It leaves me feeling uneasy.
> 
> Maybe Harry could ...< kill him with>  some other indirect means. 
> But if Harry flat
> out kills Voldie, doesn't he become essentially the thing he is
> fighting against? 

Snorky responds:
JKR has talked several times about how she wants her books to reflect
the reality of war.
For instance, in an interview with Stephen Fry around the time of Book
5's publication she said the following:
"... It's one of the cruel things about death and we're now in a war
situation where that does happen. That's how it happens ? one minute
you are talking to your friend and the next minute he is gone, so
shocking and inexplicable ? one minute they are there but now where
did they go?..." [Edited]
A reality of war is that killing your enemy is something you do even
if you are the good guy. (It reminds me of a short story by Joseph
Conrad in which an immigrant horrifies officials when he answers "yes"
to the question, "Have you ever killed anyone", and is  let off the
hook when he explains that he had been a soldier. I don't like the
image of Harry killing LV like prey, but if I were a soldier, I
might not be so squeamish. JKR seems happy to shock - she might go for
it! Or less traumatically, perhaps Harry kills LV to save a friend.

A slightly separate point: I'm also not sure that JKR meant that
whenever you kill someone, your soul splits unconditionally. Perhaps
we'll learn more about soul splitting, and whether Snape's soul was
split by his killing of Dumbledore, in Book 7.

-Snorky






From easimm at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 23:12:39 2005
From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:12:39 -0000
Subject: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives?
In-Reply-To: <djugnk+s9pv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbh57+db4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142441

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at y...>
wrote:
>
> > Snorky :
> > I know what the prophesy in Book 5 says, but I don't see any reason
> > why LV and Harry  can't go on living their separate lives. What in 
> the books, other than The prophesy, indicates that they can't?  Has 
> JKR given us any reasons so far? > 
> > 
> > I would greatly appreciate the favor of sticking to the books and 
> to logic to find your reasons. If you want to SPEW about something 
> else, please start up your own separate thread. Thanks!
> > 
> > Snorky
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Snorky:
> 
> The quote is: "and either must die at the hand of the other for 
> neither can live while the other survives"  (OotP 841 - American 
> Edition). There is more of course.  Let me know and I can put the 
> whole quote here.
>  
> Initially, I thought this meant that either Harry must kill LV or LV
> must kill Harry. After reading HBP, I suspected that this actually
> means something different. I believe that the prophesy means
> that Harry must die inorder for LV to live and thus be killed by
> someone else.  I do base my reading on the text and I would be happy 
> to share a couple of points.  (Please know that I have many more, 
> but for the sake of the elves will keep it as brief as possible)
> 
> In HBP, Fudge tells the PM this about LV: "'Yes, alive,' said
> Fudge. 'That is - I don't know - is a man alive if he can't be
> killed? I don't really understand it, and Dumbledore won't explain
> it properly...'" There are other references to the fact that LV is
> not really alive and this is the reason he cannot be killed. This
> is of course explained to the reader by Dumbledore when he tells
> Harry about the horcruxes: [Harry asked] "'So if all of his
> Horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort could be killed?' 'Yes, I think
> so,' said Dumbledore."
> 
> We know that LV is not really alive, but he would be "alive" if his
> horcruxes are destroyed and capable of dying. So Harry's mission of
> course becomes destroying the Horcruxes. However, as DD tells us,
> there is one horcrux that is an unknown object, I believe that that
> horcrux is Harry. (I can go into my reasoning here, but I have
> already completely gone over the "couple of lines" you requested and
> my thoughts are long and complicated here - let me know and I will
> post it elsewhere.) Remember, "NEITHER can LIVE while the other
> SURVIVES." Voldemort cannot LIVE while Harry survives. Thus he
> cannot be killed unless Harry dies. I hope that JKR has some kind
> of loop hole for this, but I think it follows along too nicely with
> her theme of self-sacrifice for the good of others.
> 
> It is totally possible of course that it is as simple as one must 
> kill the other; however JKR usually complicates her ideas to keep us 
> guessing.  Which could also mean that this idea is too simple and 
> she may have something more in mind.  
> 
> I love that you are more optomistic about the prophecy than some of 
> us here, but how about a little respect for different opinions.  We 
> can quote the canon at each other all day long, but at the end of 
> the day we will probably still have different readings of the same 
> text.  That is the beauty of literature.
> 
> Sending warm wishes your way,
> 
> Beatrice
>







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  2 23:42:30 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:42:30 -0000
Subject: Slytherin Gang, Snape, and the Malfoys (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <dk5jvc+g91c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbit6+bg7t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142442

> >>Potioncat:
> <snip>
> Sirius said (GoF?) that Snape belonged to a gang of Slytherins,    
> which included the LeStranges,  who almost all became DEs. I've    
> always taken that to mean the gang were friends, but it doesn't   
> have to be the case. Zacharias Smith is part of a gang (DA) that   
> includes Harry, but they aren't friends. Friends or not, if       
> Spinner's End was Snape's childhood home, it would be             
> understandable that he wouldn't invite his Slytherin classmates   
> there.
> But, Snape is a DE and so is Bella. 
> <snip>
> What I'm wondering is,  how long has she distrusted him? Did she   
> come out of Azkaban with blanket distrust of the ones who walked   
> free? Is his ability to slither out of "work" giving her pause?   
> Has it just been since the DoM disaster?

Betsy Hp:
This subject fascinates me.  Probably because we've so little to go 
on.  (An example for Nora's and Neri's "filling in the blanks" 
theory, perhaps? <g>)  But the relationship between the various 
Death Eaters seems wonderfully complex.  Or at the very least, 
realistically three-dimensional.

Most of what little canon we have comes from GoF.  (Where we first 
hear about "Death Eaters" IIRC.)  And it's fairly safe to say that 
there are fractions within that group.  Barty Crouch, at least, 
seems to draw a very strong line between "real" Death Eaters and the 
fakers who gave up on Voldemort as soon as a bit of trouble came 
along.  Lucius and Snape are quite strongly on one side of the line, 
per Barty. Himself, Bella, and her boys, are very much on the 
other.  (Karkaroff didn't come under quite as much an attack from 
Fake!Moody, IIRC.  Though of course, by not showing up in the 
graveyard he seemed to prove himself less than loyal.)

The fanaticism Bella displayed in OotP is a direct echo, I think, of 
Barty Crouch's in GoF.  And it's interesting that she and Lucius 
seem to be vying for control of the group of Death Eaters in the DoM 
battle.  At the very least they didn't seem to enjoy working with 
each other.  

I'd also wager that Lucius was less than thrilled with the attack on 
the Longbottoms.  He'd put a lot of effort into downplaying his 
involvement with the Death Eaters, and was probably hoping for the 
whole Death Eater movement to quietly slip from everyone's minds.  
The horror of such a vicious attack on such a well liked couple (I 
believe that's canon, yes?) would have awakened the desire for 
justice against all Death Eaters, I'm sure.  Something Lucius could 
most likely have done without.  (It also caused a power-shift at the 
MoM, so Lucius may have had to pay off a whole new set of government 
folk.)

Snape, whether ESE or DDM (or even OFH, actually) would have also 
prefered a non-rocking boat, I would think.  So I imagine he and 
Lucius had similar thoughts after Voldemort's fall.  The fact that 
Bella refered to Snape as "slithering" out of action in HBP, and 
that Voldemort called Lucius his "slippery friend" in GoF suggests 
that both men were less than eager to take action in Voldemort's 
service if they could avoid it.  Neither men were up to Bella's or 
Barty's level of commitment, IOW.

[Which leads me to wonder about a possible connection between Snape, 
Lucius, and Regulus (if he's RAB).  Not that Lucius was ready to 
turn on the Death Eater ideal, but that maybe he disagreed with some 
of their actions.  More anti-Muggle laws passed, less vulgar blood-
shedding, for example.] 

So what was the "Slytherin Gang" (as Sirius dubbed it) like in 
school?  For one thing, we know that they weren't all bosom 
buddies.  Not like the Marauders, at any rate.  Snape defined 
himself as set on by four versus one.  In all of the flashes of his 
youth he's seen as very much alone.  There's also the possibility of 
an age difference, and the possibility of a class difference
(especially when it comes to the Malfoys and the Blacks).  We know 
there was a blood difference.

I liked the comparison to the DA club, Potioncat.  Because, yes, 
those kids could have been seen as a group.  And yet, the group did 
not march in lockstep.  There were factions within the DA, and 
Harry's core set (Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, and Ginny) felt 
themselves seperate from the rest.  (As exampled by Ginny attacking 
Zack on the train to Hogwarts in HBP.)

Sirius also called Snape, Lucius's lapdog.  So perhaps Snape was 
brought into the group by Lucius (both may have been Slugclub 
members).  And perhaps Bella wasn't too thrilled with Snape's 
inclusion.  And perhaps there'd been tension between Lucius and 
Bella anyway.  And so perhaps, as Lucius's find, Snape was never 
fully trusted or liked by Bella.  And vice versa.  (Lot's of 
perhaps's in there, but that's the fun part, right? <g>)

> >>Potioncat:
> But, for whatever reason, both Narcissa and Wormtail know where   
> Snape works but Bella doesn't. She doesn't even seem to know that 
> his home/workplace is located in a dodgy Muggle neighborhood. 
> I don't know...something doesn't seem right.

Betsy Hp:
And Narcissa really knew the neighborhood, didn't she?  I mean, it's 
a narrow, badly lit, maze-like, neighborhood and Narcissa not only 
walks directly to Snape's house, she actually takes some alley-ways 
(read short-cuts) to get there.

Wormtail is easily explained as placed there by Voldemort to watch 
and be watched in turn.  But Narcissa's knowledge of the place is 
something different.  It suggests a personal attachment between her 
and Snape.  Narcissa describes Snape as an old friend of Lucius's.  
Use of the word "old" suggests it goes further back than a mere few 
years.

But we have Draco, in CoS, offering to put a good word in with his 
father on Snape's behalf.  Why would Draco feel the need to do that 
for his professor if Snape is his father's old friend?  Perhaps 
(there's that word again!) the two men were close during Voldemort's 
reign.  Perhaps the two of them worked on various projects together 
(the kind where their hands didn't get too dirty) and used Snape's 
wonderfully out-of-the-way home to do so.  And perhaps, when 
Voldmort fell, the two decided to push their friendship a bit more 
underground so as to avoid any unwanted connotations.  (Auror's may 
have asked more questions if two suspected Death Eaters hung out 
with each other a lot.)

By OotP we have Lucius putting in a good word for Snape with 
Umbridge, so at that point the two men are more openly friends.  But 
Voldemort is back again.  It wouldn't be good for Lucius or Snape to 
show a certain reluctance to getting back into the game by ignoring 
old ties.  And perhaps Snape and Lucius (and Narcissa?) were back to 
meeting at Snape's quiet, little, home to make more of their 
slippery, slithering, plans.

Betsy Hp (perhaps, perhaps, perrrr--haps <g>)







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov  3 00:01:06 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:01:06 -0000
Subject: Possessing the possessor, not Horcrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <dkb4ts+n7ic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbk02+g0m7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142443

> bboyminn:
> I could picture the final struggle between Harry as a test of
> wills very much like the Brother-Wand-connection in GoF. In the
> Final Battle, Voldemort has Harry down and weak, as a last gesture
> of dominance or perhaps to gain the upper hand in battle or
> perhaps to protect himself as he did in OotP, Voldemort possesses
> Harry. Harry fights the possession with every ounce of strength he
> has, he is determined to not be controlled and to win, even though 
> the odds are massively against him. In the struggle to throw off
> Voldemort's possession, Harry accidently turns the tables and
> possesses Voldemort. Now we have a true test of wills, purely good
> against evil...<snip>

Jen: Your thoughts reminded me of an excellent post by annemehr 
about this issue (link below). She made a good case that Harry was 
on the 'threshold' of possessing Voldemort in his dreams (i.e. the 
snake biting Arthur, seeing Voldemort in the mirror), but didn't 
take the step of forcing his will upon Voldemort's body, the final 
act for completely possessing him. 

With the alternative being Harry horcrux, the possession ability is 
growing on me ;). As Carol pointed out upthread, we're still waiting 
to see *powers* plural transferred from Voldemort, something else 
besides Parseltongue. I think the power of possession might also be 
a genetically inherited power found in the Slytherin bloodline, when 
you think about the connection between Morfin Gaunt and his snakes, 
and finding out Voldemort can possess Nagini. I think it might be 
important to JKR's plot that the powers passed were genetic and not 
learned powers, that the transfer did involve an actual 'bit of 
Voldemort', and happened in reverse when Voldemort took Harry's 
blood.

As an alternative, Carol's thoughts have me wondering about another 
possibility:

Carol:
> What other distinctive powers does Voldemort possess that could
> have been passed to Harry at Godric's Hollow? Legilimency, which
> Harry has acquired to some degree through the scar connection but
> seems unable to control or master, is one possibility. But we
> haven't seen Harry deliberately attempting to use Legilimency and
> I'm not sure that he can. 

Jen: Now possibly the dreams mentioned above were Harry's 
legilimency ability and not possession. I'm a firm believer Lupin is 
a Legilimens (two clues, one in Shrieking Shack and one in 
Grimmauld) and have wondered why we don't know that yet. This would 
be the perfect reason for JKR to hold back, if Lupin is going to 
enter the picture again and teach Harry how to use the scar-
connection to his advantage. 

bboyminn:
> Of course, this doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of
> Harry sacrificing himself. I could fit this in very nicely with my
> speculation that the final battle will occur in front of the Veiled
> Archway of Death. I could speculate that while Harry may dominate
> and possess Voldemort, that doesn't solve the problem. Somehow
> Voldemort has to be destroyed. I could picture Harry taking
> control and dragging himself and Voldemort along with him through
> the Veiled Archway. 

Jen: Or Voldemort will find Harry's 'power' as painful as Harry 
found his possession, and the force of his love will vanquish 
Voldemort? I was glad to hear we might again see that powerful spell 
Dumbledore sent toward Voldemort in the DOM, the one that made the 
gong sound on the shield? I picture that spell being the embodiment 
of love, and felt it would be wonderful irony for a 'gong' of love 
to kill Voldemort when he so underestimated the spell's power: "You 
do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" (chap. 36, p. 814, Scholastic) 

I know that theory doesn't make use of the Veil and you greatly want 
to see that happen. I'm thinking we have foreshadowing Harry will 
communicate with the dead through the Veil, after Luna's talk about 
the voices.

Jen, most interested in seeing the locked room again and fully 
expecting Lily was involved with the study of that room.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119783

(Annemehr's possession post)








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 00:10:48 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:10:48 -0000
Subject: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <djp2aq+u472@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbki8+10r9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142444

> >>Carol:
> > The man Snape is surprisingly athletic, running across the        
> > Hogwarts grounds and duelling Harry effortlessly and without      
> > becoming winded. 

> >>Sydney:
> Yay, a chance to introduce my  Snape theory... well, not a THEORY,
> more of a notion:  Jogging!Snape.
> <snip of evidence>
> So I reckon Snape's a jogger.  Well, more of a runner.  He seems     
> just the sort of type-A personality to get up at 5:30 and go for a   
> 5k run around the lake.
> Visual aide:  http://img379.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=joggingsnape3cs.jpg

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  I love it! And I agree about the runner versus jogger thing.  
I'm betting Snape would take the opportunity to run from his demons 
and possibly get in a bit of self-punishment too.  (Maybe a bit of 
cross-country running with snapping tree branches and treacherous 
footing?)

And can I put in a notion about Swimming!Dumbledore?  I can totally 
see Dumbledore starting his day with a refreshing swim about the lake, 
and then home for a nice steaming bowl of porridge.  Dumbledore does 
speak the mermaid's language, after all.  And there's all that 
gillyweed on hand.  (Didn't Harry find the gillyweed somehow protected 
him from the cold?)

While on the subject, I bet McGonagall would be all over a nice 
vigorous morning constitutional, striding across the fields and 
grounds surrounding Hogwarts, all tweed and tartan and a nice knobby 
walking stick.

Trelawney would go for a mid-day yoga session, of course.  Professor 
Stout... would make yearly promises to walk the Hogwarts grounds, and 
then get distracted by the greenhouses.  Flitwick... power-walking, 
maybe?  Or perhaps he's the resident jogger.  (And he thought he and 
young Snape would bond over their chosen activity but changed his mind 
after one run where Snape's pace nearly killed him, while Snape was 
holding himself back...)

Which of course leaves a question:  who's the resident cyclist?

Betsy Hp







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 00:44:37 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: How Azkaban Works?  WAS: Sirius' situation his own fault?
In-Reply-To: <dkb1kd+4g5p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051103004437.80447.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142445

CH3ed: 
SSSusan and Alla were talking about the lack of visit from DD to Sirius while Sirius was imprisoned at Azkaban. 
 
I'm quite curious about how Azkaban works. For one, I wonder if visitation is allowed there except for some special circumstances like Barty Crouch, jr being near death so that his parents were allowed a deathbed visit (which turned covertly into a prison break)? Are there wizards working there beside the dementors (not the best job in the world, ay?)? I mean, beside guarding duties, there are the other duties like feed the prisoners. I think it'd be quite a punishment having to eat food being prepared and served by dementors... Talk about soul food! 
CH3ed



		





From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 00:05:46 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkalsg+flik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051103000546.85911.qmail@web34904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142446

 
Ceridwen wrote: 
I'd agree with Carol here - he could have turned to Dumbledore.  Otherwise, everyone who asked that, has a point.  Most people in the MoM, and probably the majority of wizards and witches who know of or were around when the murder of the Potters was big news, would shun him in fear, call for the DMLE, and have him shipped right back to Azkaban, or the embrace of a 'loving' Dementor.

And, I think that's where Lupin fell down.  I'm still not sure where Lupin stood with Sirius.  <snip>
Taking all of that together, then, Lupin having special knowledge about Sirius's Animagus form yet not knowing the circumstances of GH, he should have told Dumbledore to have the staff be on the look-out for a big, black dog.  Lupin himself admits that this was a failing on his part.  If he'd told Dumbledore about the dog, it's possible Dumbledore would have gone out of his way to find Sirius before the whole Shrieking Shack episode and sort things out.  Of course, we 
wouldn't have gotten nearly as good a story out of it!  ;)



CH3ed now:
I guess Sirius did not think he could have convinced DD of his innocence without bringing in Peter (dead or alive). DD told Harry that he testified that Sirius was the Potters' secret keeper when DD was updating Harry and Hermione on things in the hospital wing before sending them on the time-traveling mission. I think getting thrown into Azkaban without a trial probably made Sirius more distrustful even of DD.

 

As for Lupin, though, I guess that even though he thought Sirius did betray Lily and James, Lupin still felt some friendly loyalty to Sirius (who, like James and Peter, became illegal animagi in order to keep Lupin company), so to blow his animagus cover would be something of a betrayal. I do think Lupin should have alerted DD to the existence of the secret tunnel from Hogswart to Honeydukes since Finch didn't seem to know about it(it remained unguarded the whole book). I don't think Lupin "let Sirius into the castle," but Lupin knew full well that Sirius knows of all the tunnels listed on the Marauders' Map. 

 

On a side curiosity... I was wondering why Lupin's spy cover (with the werewolves) still remained intact since he showed up with other Order of the Phoenix members to rescue Harry & co. at the Ministry in OotP? Bella was there and escaped with LV. 

CH3ed



		





From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 01:13:53 2005
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:13:53 -0000
Subject: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkbki8+10r9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkbo8h+ae20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142447

Sydney:
> > So I reckon Snape's a jogger.  Well, more of a runner.  

Betsy Hp:
> Hee!  I love it! [snip fun thories on how the staff exercises]. 
> 
> Which of course leaves a question:  who's the resident cyclist?
 
Lyra: 
The cyclist? Why Professor Vector, of course.










From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov  3 03:28:36 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:28:36 -0000
Subject: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkbki8+10r9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkc054+1cgb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142448

Betsy Hp:
> Trelawney would go for a mid-day yoga session, of course.  Professor 
> Stout... would make yearly promises to walk the Hogwarts grounds,
> and then get distracted by the greenhouses.  Flitwick... power-
> walking, maybe?  Or perhaps he's the resident jogger.  (And he 
> thought he and young Snape would bond over their chosen activity but
> changed his mind after one run where Snape's pace nearly killed him,
> while Snape was holding himself back...)
> 
> Which of course leaves a question:  who's the resident cyclist?

Jen: Now I was picturing Flitwick and Sprout on a bicycle-built-for-
two. Well, until Slughorn came along and started moving in on Pomona. 
Then Flitwick sullenly switched to a unicycle, or maybe even a 
stationary bike in his bedroom, where he can cast angry glances out 
the window at the happy couple walking around the greehouses.

Trelawney doing yoga sound promising, with several breaks to the Room 
of Requirement for refreshment. Would this be a good time to bring up 
my theory Trelawney got trapped in the ROR at the end of HBP and 
that's why she didn't show for the funeral? She discovered quite a 
stash in there from the past 16 years and gave up on getting out after 
a few hours. No one's missed her yet, it seems.

Sinastra must run up the Astronomy tower steps, two-at-a-time military 
style. Hardly out of breath, no doubt. She's a tough one.

Now Umbridge, while she was there--maybe walks in the forest to 
commune with nature? clip-clop, clip-clop <beg>

Now if someone else wants to take Madam Hooch, the house elves and the 
rest of the DADA's.....

Jen, laughing out loud about Snape running from his demons and 
thinking after HBP, Betsy may be entirely right about Dumbledore 
taking daily swims and collecting gillyweed.







From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 03:45:06 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:45:06 -0000
Subject: Mysterious Dumbledore/Hogwarts Instructors being single
In-Reply-To: <035701c5dfcd$76624a90$210110ac@621B10B>
Message-ID: <dkc142+d4uq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142449

>Sharon Wrote:
Nothing was ever mentioned about any family he might have, any worst 
fears, where he came from before his life at Hogwarts, or how he 
became Headmaster at Hogwarts. His life, for the most part, is a big 
mystery.

Goddlefrood responds:

Although I have been a keen and avid reader for some years it was 
only recently that I got into the theorising and speculation that 
goes on associated with the Harry Potter canon.

Dumbledore is somewhat of an enigma and a starting point for you in 
order to find out more would be to read the various interviews JKR 
has given over the years, most of which are transcribed quite well 
at www.quick-quotes-quill.com.

We have been informed that more will be told regarding Dumbledore in 
book 7 and that enquiries into his family background would lead to 
some strong clues regarding the direction of the seventh book. In 
the course of the combined Mugglent / Leaky Cauldron interview Ms. 
Rowling (16th July 2005) said:

"You will ? [pause] ? you will know more about Dumbledore. I have to 
be sooo careful on this. "

Also this:

"ES: Dumbledore is unrivaled in his knowledge of magic ? Where did 
he learn it all?
JKR: I see him primarily as someone who would be self-taught. 
However, he in his time had access to superb teachers at Hogwarts, 
so he was educated in the same way that everyone else is educated. 
Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more 
profitable than sweet wrappers."

> Sharon: 
Also, another Dumbledore question is, why did he want to see Snape 
so badly once he and Harry returned from getting the horcrux? He was 
pleading with Snape, but the reasoning for this was never revealed.

Goddlefrood:

JKR very much enjoys leaving matters for her fans to speculate on 
and this has been perhaps the largest since HBP came out.

IMO the reason Dumbledore wanted to see Snape after returning from 
the cave was simply that he believed Snape would know the antidote 
to whatever Dumbledore had drunk there. That Snape then killed him 
has been subject to speculation. There are many good posts in HPfGU 
on this and if you look around you will find a section entitled 
greatest posts, or somesuch.

On the pleading there are arguments going on as to whether 
Dumbledore was pleading for his life or for his death and again 
there are some good posts and discussions on this site regarding 
that.

> Sharon again:
For the most part, I like Dumbledore. At times, he had the patience 
of a saint, was very wise 90% of the time, and he had a kind heart, 
especially where his students were concerned. I bawled my head off 
when Dumbledore was killed in HBP. However, it irked me when he'd 
leave Harry in the dark about a lot of information that Harry had a 
right to know.

Goddlefrood comments:

As a pointer I once more refer you to an interview, this time the 
Royal Albert Hall Interview of 26th June 2003 where JKR said:

"I don't want to give too much away, but Dumbledore is a very wise 
man who firstly knows Harry is going to have to learn a few hard 
lessons to prepare him for what maybe coming in his life, so he 
allows Harry to do a lot of things he wouldn't normally allow 
another pupil to do and he also unwillingly permits Harry to 
confront a lot of things he'd rather protect him from but as people 
who have finished Order of the Phoenix will know, Dumbledore has had 
to step back a little bit from Harry in an effort to teach him some 
of life's harder lessons."

When I get round to it I intend to write a comprehensive post on my 
views on Dumbledore and any information gleaned from books and 
interviews in this regard is always useful.

> Sharon:
Now, onto the next subject. Has anyone ever noticed that Hogwarts 
instructors aren't married or have no significant other? The 
instructors seem to lead very lonely and isolated lives, in my 
opinion. 

Goddlefrood:

Yet again you are referred to an interview, this one being from 
Comic Relief Chat on 12th March 2001 where you will find:

"Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses?

Good question - yes, a few of them, but that information is sort of 
restricted - you'll find out why.."

>From this we conclude that there is more to come regarding this 
matter.

Goddlefrood with a warm welcome









From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 04:01:26 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] How Azkaban Works?  WAS: Sirius' situation his own fault?
In-Reply-To: <20051103004437.80447.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20051103040126.48572.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142450



CH3ed wrote:
 
>>I'm quite curious about how Azkaban works. For one, I wonder if visitation is allowed there except for some special circumstances like Barty Crouch, jr being near death so that his parents were allowed a deathbed visit (which turned covertly into a prison break)?
 
Juli:
In HBP, DD mentions (briefly) that it requires some sort of permit to go to Azkaban, remember it was  hard for him (Dumbledore, chief wizard of the wizenmagot and so on) to visit Gaunt (Tom's uncle - forgot the name) and to visit Mrs Smith's house elf... So I'm guessing it's pretty hard to get permision.
 
>> Are there wizards working there beside the dementors (not the best job in the world, ay?)? I mean, beside guarding duties, there are the other duties like feed the prisoners. I think it'd be quite a punishment having to eat food being prepared and served by dementors... Talk about soul food! 

Juli:
I think the dementors do all the work around Azkaban. In PoA, when Sirius was telling Harry & Co how he escaped from prison, he said that while the dementors where giving him his food, he escaped as padfoot.

 

Also, in GoF Sirius says that the dementors burried MrsCrouch!Barty Jr...

 

Do you think anyone would be able to work besides a dementor? Remember the whole purpose of dementor guarding Azkaban is that the prisioners lock themselves up inside their heads, walls aren't needed. So whoever was to work there (or even stay for over a few minutes or hours) would also be in prison.

 

Juli - I'm back! 



            




Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!





---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 




    Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web.
  
    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. 


---------------------------------




Juli
Aol: jlnbtr
Yahoo: jlnbtr



		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  3 06:27:59 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:27:59 -0000
Subject: Possessing the possessor, not Horcrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <dkbk02+g0m7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkcalf+el7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142451


> > bboyminn:
> > I could picture the final struggle between Harry as a test of
> > wills ...edited Voldemort has Harry down and weak, ...edited.. 
> > Voldemort possesses Harry. Harry fights the possession..edit..
> > ... he is determined to not be controlled and to win, even though 
> > the odds are massively against him. In the struggle to throw off
> > Voldemort's possession, Harry accidently turns the tables and
> > possesses Voldemort. ....
> 
> Jen: Your thoughts reminded me of an excellent post by annemehr 
> about this issue (link below). She made a good case that Harry was 
> on the 'threshold' of possessing Voldemort in his dreams (i.e. the 
> snake biting Arthur, seeing Voldemort in the mirror), but didn't 
> take the step of forcing his will upon Voldemort's body, the final 
> act for completely possessing him. 
> 
> bboyminn:
> > Of course, this doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of
> > Harry sacrificing himself. I could fit this in very nicely with my
> > speculation that the final battle will occur in front of the 
> > Veiled Archway of Death. I could speculate that while Harry may 
> > dominate and possess Voldemort, that doesn't solve the problem. 
> > Somehow Voldemort has to be destroyed. I could picture Harry 
> > taking control and dragging himself and Voldemort along with him 
> > through the Veiled Archway. 

Valky:
SOLD!!!! <g> 
You know I have always loved your thoughts on Harry going through the
veil and what he might find there, Steve. And I have clung to the
faint hope that despite JKR's firm declaration that the dead are dead
are dead in the Potterverse, and entertained the notion that Harry
*will* go through he veil *and* return *and* will experience golden
moment with his loved ones on his way that we talked about long ago. 

Was it too much to ask? Well yes, it was too much for Harry!crux, or
Lone Harry!crux, as I have always maintained and it is true, I only
support Hary!crux in that it randomly comes up as an end of countless
paths of deduction. 

My favourite example (Harry!crux's distant cousin):
Dudders said it *was too* Harry who had scared him silly when the
Dementors attacked him - it's hidden in plain view. Think JKR doesn't
do this to us? Try the vanishing cabinet in HBP, paraphrase - Harry:
Did you see what he was pointing at? Hermione: He was standing behind
that cabinet. Draco was pointing at the cabinet! And there is always
COS when Ginny looks horrified at Harry when he drops the diary, but
so what hey, Ginny is nervous around Harry maybe not *that* nervous...
If you want Dudley's worst memory then *believe him* it "was" Harry.


That said, I will add that I am not giving up Harry!crux completely
*quite* yet, but I am certainly willing to put it aside for this
excellent Powers theory of Harry possessing Voldemort and walking them
both through the veil together using his will. I mean, Harry could
come back! possibly~ since technically it's Voldemort's body going
through the veil and not Harry's. And Harry would for certain call
Sirius to his side to help him once he's in there then maybe some
others as well... I mean how many dead *friends* does Voldie have? <g>
 
Now I don't know if there are any listees still interested in the
mythological Horcrux parallels, but a walk through death's gate to
find the great 'dog' guardian of the underworld and drag him back was
Hercules *last* labour. (Yes, Sherrie, Jen, fellow Sirius fans, it
says Sirius *might* come back ;D) but up til now, I wasn't able to
think of *anything* that enabled Harry to possibly~ walk through the
veil without dying. Whats more, it explains why JKR *had* to send
Sirius through the veil. I mean, who else would he think of calling
out to for help in the moment of his death? Sirius *has* to *be there*
for Harry. 

Now for some logistics: Lets say Harry walks possessed!Voldie through
the veil.. Where is Harry? What is Harry? Is he just a soul in the
underworld? did he leave his body behind? If he brings Sirius back
does SB come back bodily or does he come back as a part of Harry? 

Any takers?

Valky
Cheering for Carol, bboymn and Jen (and annemehr) for introdducing the
most bloody brilliant alternative (or addendum) to Harry!crux.










From mcandrew at bigpond.com  Thu Nov  3 12:17:17 2005
From: mcandrew at bigpond.com (Little lama)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:17:17 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End (Bella)
In-Reply-To: <dk9are+bgei@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkcv4d+pb62@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142452

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at i...> 
wrote:
>
> > Hi, Lama here.  Just a small point ... I think the 'Lestranges' 
who 
> > Sirius was referring to would have to be Rodolphus and his 
brother 
> > Rabastan and any other siblings in their family.  Bella wasn't a 
> > Lestrange during her Hogwarts days, as she hadn't married one of 
> > them yet - she was Bellatrix Black.  So she was not listed by 
Sirius 
> > as one of the Slytherin gang members, and we can't really assume 
> > that she knew Snape at school.
> 
> houyhnhnm quotes:
> 
> "...he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out 
to
> be Death Eaters."
> Sirius held uphis fingers and began ticking off names.
> "Rosier and Wilkes--they were both killed by aurors the year before
> Voldemort fell.  The LaStranges--they're a married couple--they're 
in
> Azkaban...." (GoF, Scholastic, p. 531)
>

Lama: Oops, my mistake ... haven't looked at GoF for so long I am 
starting to forget whole paragraphs.. :)  and was probably confunded 
by the proximity of this to when Sirius was referring back to their 
school days a moment earlier.

I still get the impression there's at least enough age difference 
between Bella and Snape that she was a senior girl at Hogwarts when 
he was a junior boy.  In which case she would hardly have noticed 
him at school, let alone be socialising with him after hours.

After all she seems to have quite a thing for VM, and he's got to be 
about 70 by the time Spinner's End takes place.

Lama






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  3 12:17:58 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:17:58 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will -  additional thoughts Re: Possessing the possessor,
In-Reply-To: <dkcalf+el7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkcv5m+523r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142453

I am starting this on a fresh page, because I think I might have heaps
of rambling to do as well as a bit of raving the listees that
introduced this inspiring theory.

I hope all those that have acknowledged the excellence of Neri's post
and are now considering Harry!crux as a possibility, and those who
just can't quite get there will alike enjoy the sheer vastness of the
field Possessor!Harry opens up for speculation. Rave rave rave .. I
love it.. lets build a boat! <bg>


As I said, briefly, in my previous post on this thread, we are with
this inspiration able to speculate on what might happen if Harry walks
Voldemort's body through he veil. And for me, just glimpsing the
possibility of a reunion with Sirius is enough, I grasped it two-handed..

Oh and speaking of two handed... Possessor Harry translates
excellently into either must die by the hand of the other if we
interpret the meaning of 'hand' to be the hand of their respective will.

First lets look at what happens when Voldemort possesses Harry in the MOM 

**********************************************************************
OOtP, The only one he ever feared. - "....[Harry] knew he was dead..." 
**********************************************************************

There's that word! Dead! Harry 'dead' by Voldemort's hand,
specifically the 'hand' of Voldemort's will. It is a mystery that has
haunted me since OOtP, and I think some others among us also wonder,
what does that mean? If Harry was *dead* the instant Voldemort
possessed him.....?

IMO the mystery is solved in a flash by a simple application of
Steve's theory of the final battle. Voldemort possesses Harry and
Harry possesses Voldemort right back. 

See how simple that was? Either just died by the hand of the other. 

I can't believe this is the first time I've thought of it!

Now the last line of the prophecy is not so case simplex.. we need to
apply some character interpretation to it, but Dumbledore did lead us
in that direction in HBP -

**********************************************************************
If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been
fulfilled? Would it have meant anything?
....
Harry, Harry, only because Voldemort made a grave error, and acted on
Professor Trelawney's words!
....
Of course you've got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you,
yourself, will never rest until you've tried! We both know it!

HBP Horcruxes  
**********************************************************************

In the event that Harry and Voldemort become locked in this battle for
possession of their own life and will, neither can live while the
other survives. First simply because Harry will die if Voldemort
possesses him again. This time around Voldemort won't risk leaving it
to someone else to do the job for him, he'll have a plan to kill Harry
without delay, before Harry can use his Heart to drive LV out. But if
LV doesn't count on the unique powers that he has endowed on Harry
when trying to kill him then he will not have reckoned on Harry
fighting back with his Iron Fist of will and accidentally possessing
Voldemort in the process, and in the event of that, I am sure, Harry
will quickly choose to die, Voldemort cannot live if Harry survives
because Harry just wouldn't choose to survive with Voldie in him. 
This is how I like to interpret it.

There are a couple of directions this can go. Harry can tell someone
to kill him. Avada Kedavra, it's over.. or he could get Voldie through
the veil, my personal favourite.

Once through the veil, in the land of the dead, it could be possible
that one of them can escape with their lives. Only one body through
the veil, only one death. I see a couple of scenarios, one I like
because it continues the action on the oher side of the veil and the
other I like because it makes a little more sense.

The first on is that on the other side of the veil Voldemort and Harry
can still be locked in battle for the one life left between them.
However, Harry has many friends in the underworld, and Voldemort
equally as many enemies. Voldemort being without love, and without
friends is powerless there, he is at the mercy of the people he has
killed in his life (like the wand shadows). It stands to reason that
whether Voldie is given mercy or retribution, he has no chance of
leaving. If one of them is to go home then it will be Harry by order
of the army that will rally behind Harry and help him to get Voldemort
to stay. One thing I don't like about this is that it offres only
*another* fleeting glimpse for Harry at the people he has loved and
lost, he won't get to speak to his parents, and he won't get to say
goodbye to Dumbledore. 

The second one I like better because as I said, it makes more sense in
some ways, and even better, it gives Harry *time* with his family and
friends! In this scenario Harry takes Voldemort through the veil and
Voldemort is instantly dead and gone forever. But Harry is shocked to
discover that he is not! Harry is *something else* because he came in
*inside* Voldemort. A bit confused about what to do next Harry
remembers that Sirius is here, and he decides that he'll ask Sirius
for help. Sirius appears at his side instantly, bringing some friends
with him. The thing I don't ike about this one is that there is NO
action! It's a cool sentimental moment, but I just don't think that
will be enough..


Okay Just for good measure here's my third and favourite (yet
fanficcy/fantasy) version, not logical entirely, but it has all the
elements I wish to see.

Harry takes Voldie through the veil and Voldie still has some kind of
fight in him, Harry needs help to make it stick. He remembers he is
with Sirius and calls to Sirius for help, Sirius turns up immediately
with Harry's army who help Harry to overcome Voldemort in a
magnificent final battle behind the veil.

When Voldemort is overcome and dead for good, everyone is astonished
to discover that Harry is not dead, he can't stay. This is a
bittersweet moment because Harry finally reunited with his parents
discovers that he will not be able to stay with them because he is in
a state of limbo and they are properly dead, and they also discover
that Harry can't get back out without a body that has come through the
front door. Naturally noone wants him to take Voldemort back and noone
wants Harry stuck in eternal nothingness. SO his only way out is to
take Sirius with him.

Valky
reclining with a satisfied smirk - it couldn't be more perfect.
<g>








 








From erikog at one.net  Thu Nov  3 09:28:36 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:28:36 -0000
Subject: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkbki8+10r9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkcl84+66ej@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142454

> > >>Sydney:
>
> > So I reckon Snape's a jogger.  Well, more of a runner.  He 
seems     
> > just the sort of type-A personality to get up at 5:30....

This cracked me up. I'd like to add that this theory explains *both* 
why he can demonstrate athleticism *and* yet still very pale-skinned. 
(Unless Hogwarts has a faculty gym, all his other workout options would 
be outdoors!)

Krista (wondering what music Jogging!Snape has on his iPod)








From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  3 14:59:48 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:59:48 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will -  additional thoughts Re: Possessing the possessor,
In-Reply-To: <dkcv5m+523r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkd8l4+t54b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142455

Valky:
> *(snip)* ...Harry has many friends in the underworld, and Voldemort
> equally as many enemies. Voldemort being without love, and without
> friends is powerless there, he is at the mercy of the people he has
> killed in his life (like the wand shadows). 

Ceridwen:
I've thought the wand shadows would have something to do with the 
final extinction of LV since the end of GoF.  It's only fitting, IMO, 
that they have some way to avenge themselves.  I was imagining a 
Prior Incantatum (sp?), though how to trap LV into that situation 
again was always a problem.  I'd imagined that, being spirits or 
souls (not sure which would be inside the wand), they would also be 
the only ones who could deal with Voldemort's spirit and soul (or 
what's left of it) on the Spirit Plane.  No living corporeal being 
could, I'd think.  The veil/possession scenario takes care of how to 
get the shades of the departed into the picture.  So far, works great!

*(snip)*
Valky: 
> Okay Just for good measure here's my third and favourite (yet
> fanficcy/fantasy) version, not logical entirely, but it has all the
> elements I wish to see.
> 
> Harry takes Voldie through the veil and Voldie still has some kind 
of
> fight in him, Harry needs help to make it stick. He remembers he is
> with Sirius and calls to Sirius for help, Sirius turns up 
immediately
> with Harry's army who help Harry to overcome Voldemort in a
> magnificent final battle behind the veil.
> 
> When Voldemort is overcome and dead for good, everyone is astonished
> to discover that Harry is not dead, he can't stay. This is a
> bittersweet moment because Harry finally reunited with his parents
> discovers that he will not be able to stay with them because he is 
in
> a state of limbo and they are properly dead, and they also discover
> that Harry can't get back out without a body that has come through 
the
> front door. Naturally noone wants him to take Voldemort back and 
noone
> wants Harry stuck in eternal nothingness. SO his only way out is to
> take Sirius with him.

Ceridwen:
I don't get how Harry bringing Sirius's body out of the veil would 
bring Sirius back.  The body would now be available for burial and 
proper mourning, but two spirits just couldn't leave the veil, even 
if they're in one body.  If they could, then Sirius would have 
theoretically (IMO) been able to leave when he fell through.  I would 
think the only way a spirit/soul could leave, is if it wasn't 
supposed to be there anyway.  Which would be the case with two 
spirits/souls entering in one body.

But again, if Harry is possessing LV's body, that wouldn't be either 
his soul or his spirit, would it?  Only his mind?  He would still be 
attatched to his body through his soul and spirit being on the Other 
Side (our side, their version of the 'other side' *g*) with his 
living body.  I can see a possible scenario where, the longer Harry's 
consciousness remains behind the veil, the more of his soul/spirit 
energy follow him (which would be what was keeping his consciousness 
intact), and that sooner or later, if he stayed long enough, his non-
physical parts would join him there permanently, and the body would 
drop dead.

I could probably get into the soul/spirit differences again, though I 
got completely lost when we did that before.  But even if the 
consciousness belongs to one or the other, I would expect that both 
must be present in some measure for Harry (not the body) to really 
be 'beyond the veil'.  If consciousness is soul, then, the lack of 
spirit being with him would tie him to his body, something like a 
naturally-functioning horcrux.  If it's the spirit which holds 
consciousness, then the lack of soul would anchor the root of 
consciousness back in the body.  The bittersweet moment of greeting 
and parting could still exist, with all realizing that Harry cannot 
stay because he is not completely through the veil.  He could even be 
offered the choice (via Dumbledore?) to call his soul or spirit, 
whichever one is still intact in Harry's body, to join him, killing 
the body and leaving Harry beyond the veil (yet to us, still alive) 
forever.  He might even be able to go back to his body to think about 
it, and if he decides to take that option, to collect his soul/spirit 
and inform Ron and Hermione why he's about to go back through the 
veil for good.

It's interesting to think that all of Harry's parental figures who 
have been taken from him, supposedly to force him into the lone 
hero's journey, would be there at the end, aiding him as if they were 
still part of the living, right where they would have been if they 
had not died.  Instead of removing them, if this is going to be the 
scenario, JKR has placed them at the optimum place to give Harry the 
support he needs to defeat LV altogether, to get the deepest wish of 
his heart (to see his loved ones), and to find the strength to carry 
on without them, or to enter into their world beyond the veil.

Ceridwen.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 18:20:39 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:20:39 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will -  (more) additional thoughts
In-Reply-To: <dkcv5m+523r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkdkdn+d2ab@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142456

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at h...> wrote:
>
> I am starting this on a fresh page, because I think I might 
> have heaps of rambling to do as well as a bit of raving the
> listees that introduced this inspiring theory.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> 
> ... we are, with this inspiration, able to speculate on what might
> happen if Harry walks Voldemort's body through he veil. And for 
> me, just glimpsing the possibility of a reunion with Sirius is 
> enough, I grasped it two-handed..
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> IMO the mystery is solved in a flash by a simple application of
> Steve's theory of the final battle. Voldemort possesses Harry and
> Harry possesses Voldemort right back. 
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> 
> There are a couple of directions this can go. ...
> 
> Once through the veil, in the land of the dead, it could be possible
> that one of them can escape with their lives. Only one body through
> the veil, only one death. ...
> 
> The first on is that on the other side of the veil Voldemort 
> and Harry can still be locked in battle for the one life left 
> between them. ... Harry has many friends in the underworld, 
> and Voldemort equally as many enemies. ... It stands to reason 
> that whether Voldie is given mercy or retribution, he has no 
> chance of leaving. If one of them is to go home then it will
> be Harry ...
> 
> The second one I like better because ... it gives Harry *time*
> with his family...! In this scenario Harry takes Voldemort 
> through the veil and Voldemort is instantly dead and gone 
> forever. But Harry is shocked to discover that he is not... 
> because he came in *inside* Voldemort. ... The thing I don't 
> like about this one is that there is NO action! It's a cool 
> sentimental moment, ...
> 

bboyminn:

First, I'm not so sure it's an either/or, I could see a combination of
both. 

At this point let me pause to make a note to Ceridwen on the nature of
possession. We have actually seen various forms of possession in the
books, but only one form, true possession, counts. We have seen Ginny
possessed by Tom Riddle, but that wasn't possession in its truest
form. Tom had no corporeal body at the time, so in a sense it was the
spirit of Tom as captured by the Diary that possessed Ginny. To some
extent we have seen mental 'possession' in the form of the Imperius
Curse and other 'mind links' but again that is not true possession.
The 'possessed' person is not fully possessed by the person in charge,
only by the /will/ of the person in charge.

The only true possession we have seen clearly is when Voldemort
possessed Harry in the Ministry of Magic battle in OotP. I'm not sure
how you view it, but the only logical way I can see it is that
Voldemort merged his body with Harry's. In the truest sense, two
bodies became one. That has to be how it was because if Voldemort had
only mentally possessed Harry, then Voldemort would have been very
vulnerable. While his mind was in Harry, his body would have been
outside Harry and very vulnerable to attack by Dumbledore. Voldemort
can't afford to leave his body unprotected, so the only thing that
makes reasonable sense is that Voldemort melded his own body into
Harry's. That's true possession. Now Voldemort can't be attacked
without attacking Harry. In a  sense, he was using Harry's body as a
sheild.

One small piece that is missing from this discussion that I hinted at
before and stated clearly in an off-line comment to Valky, is that
when the two bodies merge together, we see the body of the possessed.
That is, when Voldemort is in charge, we see Harry's body. But when
Harry turns the tables and is in charge possessing Voldemort, we see
Voldemort's body. The person 'in-charge' is hidden within the body of
the person being possessed. That is consistent with what we see in the
Ministry of Magic; Voldemort has hidden his own body and self inside
Harry's body, and that's why there is nothing for Dumbledore to attack.

> Valky continues:
> 
> Okay Just for good measure here's my third and favourite ... 
> version, ...
> 
> Harry takes Voldie through the veil and Voldie still has some
> kind of fight in him, Harry needs help to make it stick. He 
> remembers he is with Sirius and calls to Sirius for help, ...
> a magnificent final battle behind the veil.
> 
> When Voldemort is overcome and dead... This ... bittersweet 
> ...Harry finally reunited with his parents discovers that he
> will not be able to stay.. he is in a state of limbo..., and
> they also discover that Harry can't get back out without a body
> .... ... SO his only way out is to take Sirius with him.
> 
> Valky

bboyminn:

I like it! Again, we have a very unique case of /special
circumstances/ here. Harry's body is merged inside Voldemort's; in a
sense, he is a passenger in Voldemort's body. I'm not sure how JKR
will explain it, but I do feel the merging of two bodies will indeed
constitute special circumstances beyond the Veil. 

Perhaps as long as they are merged together /neither can die while the
other survives/, and by extention, that implies that neither can truly
live while the other survives. The only way for either of them to die
is for the possession to be terminated. When the bodies break apart,
one or both will die. Now Sirius came through the Veil under special
circumstances too. His spirit didn't pass through after he was dead;
he went through as a fully living being; body, mind, and spirit all
still merged together; fully alive and fully functional. Further more,
Sirius's body still remains behind the Veil. The way for Sirius to
have died properly would have been for his spirit to join the land of
the dead, while his body fell out of the other side of the Veil, back
into the physical world.

Perhaps, Sirius is trapped by his /special circumstances/ behind the
Veil. It's a stretch, but perhaps as a single body or a single spirit,
he can not cross the boundary between the living and the dead. That
is, he can't cross back over to the land of the living as a single
body/spirit. Admittedly I am reaching here for an explanation, and am
coming up with a relatively weak one, but I can't be expected to have
all the answers.

So, the solution is for Sirius to touch Voldemort. That leaves Harry a
path into another body without having to spend any time not sharing a
body. Once, we can speculate, Harry's body stands on its own, it is
vulnerable to death, or vulnerable to being trapped behind the Veil as
Sirius is. But by moving to Sirius's body with no 'in-between' time,
he remains safe. With Harry in control and his own body protected,
Harry marches Sirius's body out from behind the Veil. On the living
side of the Veil, Harry separates from Sirius and they are both very
much alive and safe. Although, it is possible to speculate that
Sirius's body will drop dead when Harry exists it, that's just a
detail and one I can live with. 

Now to the real problem. This is all a great potential ending for the
story. The question is will/has JKR thought of it? I think one of the
disappointments of HBP was that we spend years inventing our own,
sometimes very exciting and far out, scenarios, so that when the book
appeared, it couldn't live up to our wildest speculations. Personally,
I still say that a Harry/Draco struggle for the Black Estate, and a
continuation of the D.A. Club as a means for the 'Good Slytherins' to
appear would have been a better story. But, I'm not the author, and my
wild speculations, interesting as they may be, don't count for
anything. I worry that once again we will speculate so many wild and
exciting possibilities that the books can never live up to two years
of our wild speculation.

Wow! Only two or (groan) three more years to go before we have the
final answer. 

At any rate, I think we have come up with a reasonably sound and very
interesting ending to the story.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From kaitoujuliet at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 16:59:02 2005
From: kaitoujuliet at yahoo.com (kaitoujuliet)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:59:02 -0000
Subject: War
In-Reply-To: <42FD96A400021A79@mta12.wss.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkdfkm+4avt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142457

Hi!  Delurking to offer a comment on the war subject...

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Miller" <papa at m...> wrote:

> Sometimes war is not optional and it requires violent and ugly
> acts from moral people.

Wellllll...that may be true in Real Life.  But in a fictional universe, 
war can be anything the author wants it to be.  It can be optional or 
not optional, just or unjust or questionable.  A fictional character 
*may* be able to engage in war without becoming ugly.  It's all in the 
spin the author gives it.

I humbly suggest that it would be more fruitful to ask what war means 
within J.K. Rowling's fictional universe, what Harry's decision means, 
and what the book is saying about the issues involved.

Juliet








From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Thu Nov  3 18:29:09 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:29:09 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
Message-ID: <dkdktl+lp0p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142458

 
 There has been a lot of discussion of which major characters will die
in the 7th book. I have seen lots of arguments for the demise of
Harry, Ron, any number of Weasley's, Snape, Draco, and Lupin. Some
death predictions that I have not seen too many arguments for are
Hermione and Hagrid. I agree that I do not see the death of Hermione
as being likely. It simply does not seem to fit with the general
feeling of the books. However, I have seen one excellent case for the
death of Hagrid. He is not someone that I want to die, but I think it
would fit very well thematically. John Granger has proposed a theory
for the Potterverse based upon alchemic properties. It is too long to
explain here, but his website www.hogwartsprofessor.com explains it in
great detail. With this idea, he acurately predicted the death of
Sirius Black in the O.O.T.P and Albus Dumbledore in H.B.P. He also
accrurately described the weather patterns that these books would
begin with.(rainy, misty and cool in the case of H.B.P) His theory
basically states that the last 3 books are following the color stages
in Alchemy. The black period comes first and this is when Sirius dies.
Next is the white period and that is why he accurately predicted the
death of our favorite Headmaster. (Albus means white with age) The 3ed
and final stage is red. Rubeus Hagrid's name indeicates red or ruddy
in nature. For this reason, Granger has predicted that Hagrid will be
among the dead in the final book. I tend to agree with the major
points of the theory, but I believe there are other reasons that
Hagrid might die.  Hagrid would be a good choice for a surprising end.
Throughout the books, I believe that the readers have been steered
into seeing Hagrid as more or less an equal of the trio. Even when he
is a teacher, he does not radiate any sense of authority. If anyone
has any thoughts on this point I would love to hear them. 
 truthbeauty1









From zehms at aol.com  Thu Nov  3 18:38:06 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:38:06 -0000
Subject: Harry a Horcrux?
Message-ID: <dkdlee+j5ce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142459

I am new to this site, I do think Harry is not a horcrux, but 
continue to be charmed by the mystique of the Harry as a horcrux 
theory.  So I will defend the theory as a devil's advocate and in 
the spirit of the Socratic method.

While most of my thoughts are only "my thoughts and guesses" I try 
to make educated guesses.  

I can only make this assumption: If Harry is a horcrux, that 
portion of Voldemort's soul lies dormant inside him unless it is 
triggered. Only when Lord Voldemort's presence is near or his 
emotions are aroused does the scar burn-the scar is an "alarm 
bell" it burns and causes pain to Harry signaling the presence of 
Voldemort or LV emotions when they are particularly acute. 

It is true Harry felt as if his scar was going to "burst open" 
when he was possessed by LV because the alarm bell was raging full 
force. When LV possesses Harry "Harry did not know where his body 
ended and the creature's began. They were fused together.."

But they could not remain fused because when Harry thought of 
Sirius his heart filled with Joy, Hope and love. SO it appears that 
Voldemort CANNOT survive in his last "horcrux" as long as Harry's 
soul and being is side by side with Voldemort's, so I guess you 
could say "one cannot live while the other lives.." sound familiar? 

However, I would venture to say that there are very few who 
Voldemort could possess for any length of time
that is why he 
created horcruxes in objects.  Could Voldemort possess Hermione or 
Ron, NO, for the same reasons he cannot fully possess Harry, the 
difference is that they do not have a scar that burns intensely, 
and that is the key.

You are probably thinking "aha" exactly, Voldemort cannot possess 
a human very long so why make a human a horcrux!  I would agree, 
Voldemort probably did not desire to make a human horcrux because 
1) it looks like it has never been done, so 2) who knows what the 
consequences would be, Voldemort's greatest fear would likely be 
transferring his powers to someone else and therefore GIVING 
SOMEONE ELSE THE TOOLS TO DEFEAT HIM.  Also a human is weak, a 
human dies, then what would happen to the horcrux?

This question leads me to another
.if the horcrux were attempted 
on a human, would it attach to the body or the soul
? No one knew 
but I think we now know, the horcrux would attach to the essence 
of the person, essentially splitting the soul, sharing it with 
another
Voldemort would not want this, wouldn't doing this give 
that person the power to defeat him, give him the abilities that 
only the great Lord Voldemort, the heir of Slytherin, possesses?  

Let us move on for a minute and answer these questions later
.
let's revisit the one Horcrux we DO know about and that Harry 
destroyed...


You see in COS a portion of the soul resided in the object of a 
diary, however it was simply a vessel waiting to be filled, a 
trigger waiting to be pulled, the Horcrux when in an object does 
not have a mind of its own, it needs an accomplice, the diary 
needed Ginny's soul, maybe a "soul exchange." Tom riddle 
materialized more and more the closer to death she became, 
eventually her death would have made the process complete. 

So again, in order for the Horcrux to be activated and used to 
house Voldemort's soul, it appears a soul must be sacrificed. 
If Harry were a horcrux would not Voldemort have only to destroy 
Harry's soul to reclaim Harry as a horcrux ? Then it wouldn't 
matter if Harry was filled with love
.But how can he destroy 
Harry's soul and still retain the portion necessary for him?  

I thought about this theory
 Let's see what can keep a person 
alive yet suck out its soul with a simple kiss.....hmmm.....a 
dementor maybe????  But the dementor would take Voldemort's soul 
with it, so this probably isn't the way for Voldemort to go.


But hey, all we know for sure and we can all agree on is 
that "Voldemort put a bit of himself" in Harry and no one, not 
even Dumbledore knows how it happened. I think the connection can 
be explained via a horcrux.  

I can't help but wonder how Harry knew what to do in COS. How did 
he, a 2nd year at Hogwarts, know how Tom Riddle? 
"While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle 
before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though 
Riddle was a friend he had had when he was very small, and had 
half-forgotten"...
(COS)

How did he SOMEHOW know how to destroy the horcrux?
"Then without thinking, without considering, as if he meant to do 
it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor..." (COS) 
How did Harry know parseltongue? Why did the sorting hat see the 
mind and talents of a Slytherin inside of Harry? 
You can say that somehow the backfiring of the Avada curse gave 
Harry a bit of Voldemort, but isn't that in essence a horcrux? 

I think it is back in the vestiges of his mind is Voldemort, lying 
dormant with just a small piece of a soul that can only become 
whole when the horcrux is properly activated. 

I think it is correct to assume Voldemort cannot fully possess 
Harry, but a horcrux isn't a simple possession, I think it is a 
small deposit, Voldemort's actual soul or original soul can only 
possess the weak, like Quirrell, or simple animals and rodents..

Activating a horcrux I think we will find is more complex than 
mere possession. And regarding Nagini, In GOF Harry sees the death 
of the muggle I think through Nagini, Lord Voldemort turns to face 
Harry at the end of the dream/vision and Harry wakes up, I think 
he again was viewing the muggle death through Nagini's eyes, 
although it was not quite as vivid as the vision with Arthur. Also 
the snake seemed to be following orders..." Harry (Nagini) longed 
to bite the man but he must master the impulse he had more 
important work to do..." Harry also said "I was the snake..I saw 
it all from the snake's point of view" Snape would not tell 
Harry...  oh, it's because you and Nagini and Voldemort are 
horcruxes with a soul connection...Harry didn't even know about 
the prophecy at that point.

If it can be demonstrated that Harry also has a connection with 
Nagini then Harry is very, very likely a horcrux
the connections 
are just too strong to be anything but a soul connection
but again this is speculation
.
 
I would like to end this long posting with this passage:
"A tiny puff of pale green smoke issued from the minuscule silver 
tube at the top...after a few seconds the tiny puffs became a 
steady stream of smoke....a serpents head grew out of the end 
(Voldemort) opening its mouth wide...the smoke serpent, however, 
split itself instantly into two snakes...(Voldemort splits its 
soul with Harry)..with a look of grim satisfaction DD gave the 
instrument another gentle tap...."
That night Voldemort split a piece of his soul with Harry, why did 
DD say "in essence divided" does that mean that they are connected 
but in essence divided, that neither can live with the other 
(neither can possess the other), why the look of grim satisfaction? 
I can only guess...

I think Lily and James protected Harry more than anyone realizes, 
that is why no one can explain it...I think they merely wanted 
Harry to be able to survive were Voldemort to try to kill him (and 
they knew that whenever Voldemort wanted someone dead, he got his 
wish, no one ever survived LV before).
What did they do? How did their actions "split Voldemort's soul" 
combining it with Harry's, how was this horcrux created? 
We can only speculate... 

 I think the million dollar question is how can a thinking feeling 
human with love inside him be a vessel for Voldemort, how can that 
person have a piece of Voldemort's soul
?

But I ask how can they be so connected? Why the illustration of 
the snake that splits into two "together but in essence divided?"  
What other explanation is there for the deep and profound 
connection?  Why can only one live? Could it be that only one soul 
can survive because of the horcrux theory?

 "Szehms" 









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  3 21:37:21 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:37:21 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will -  (more) additional thoughts
In-Reply-To: <dkdkdn+d2ab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkdvuh+naov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142460

bboyminn:
> 
> At this point let me pause to make a note to Ceridwen on the nature 
of
> possession. We have actually seen various forms of possession in the
> books, but only one form, true possession, counts. We have seen 
Ginny
> possessed by Tom Riddle, but that wasn't possession in its truest
> form. Tom had no corporeal body at the time, so in a sense it was 
the
> spirit of Tom as captured by the Diary that possessed Ginny. To some
> extent we have seen mental 'possession' in the form of the Imperius
> Curse and other 'mind links' but again that is not true possession.
> The 'possessed' person is not fully possessed by the person in 
charge,
> only by the /will/ of the person in charge.
> 
> The only true possession we have seen clearly is when Voldemort
> possessed Harry in the Ministry of Magic battle in OotP. I'm not 
sure
> how you view it, but the only logical way I can see it is that
> Voldemort merged his body with Harry's. In the truest sense, two
> bodies became one. That has to be how it was because if Voldemort 
had
> only mentally possessed Harry, then Voldemort would have been very
> vulnerable. While his mind was in Harry, his body would have been
> outside Harry and very vulnerable to attack by Dumbledore. Voldemort
> can't afford to leave his body unprotected, so the only thing that
> makes reasonable sense is that Voldemort melded his own body into
> Harry's. That's true possession. Now Voldemort can't be attacked
> without attacking Harry. In a  sense, he was using Harry's body as a
> sheild.

Ceridwen:
I see possession as the deliberate overtaking of a body by a spirit 
entity.  I don't see physical bodies merging at all.  I have no idea 
what Voldemort was supposed to have done with his body at the MoM, 
other than to keep on fighting with it while a part of him engaged 
Harry.  And that's only with a minute's thought since you brought it 
up.  While I can suspend disbelief at the idea of flying on brooms, 
waving a wand and making colored lights lift, slash, kill or heal, 
tapping a teacup to create a gerbil, and all the other spells 
consigned to the realm of 'magic' in the HP books, the whole physics 
involved in merging bodies would blast the story to pieces.  I would 
be out of it totally.  My contempt would know no bounds.  I would 
feel as if JKR had been playing games not only with something fun 
like magic, but with reason itself.  Melting together?  Maybe, if the 
fire's hot enough.  Being frozen to one another?  Sure, given enough 
time.  But not the sudden, unannounced, ability to merge bodies.  Up 
until that point it's always been a mind thing.  I don't see why it 
would change.

Ceridwen.






From lady.indigo at gmail.com  Thu Nov  3 21:38:27 2005
From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:38:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <dkdktl+lp0p@eGroups.com>
References: <dkdktl+lp0p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <63378ee70511031338o26b1439ak72b1b5325d7e2764@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142461

On 11/3/05, truthbeauty1 <rh64643 at appstate.edu> wrote:
>
>  The 3ed
> and final stage is red. Rubeus Hagrid's name indeicates red or ruddy
> in nature. For this reason, Granger has predicted that Hagrid will be
> among the dead in the final book. I tend to agree with the major
> points of the theory, but I believe there are other reasons that
> Hagrid might die. Hagrid would be a good choice for a surprising end.
> Throughout the books, I believe that the readers have been steered
> into seeing Hagrid as more or less an equal of the trio. Even when he
> is a teacher, he does not radiate any sense of authority. If anyone
> has any thoughts on this point I would love to hear them.
> truthbeauty1


I don't really post on here anymore, though I really should, but I've read
that theory before and I'm surprised that 'red' made his mind go to Hagrid.
It makes me think of the Weasleys much more easily. Red hair.

- Lady Indigo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zehms at aol.com  Thu Nov  3 21:23:59 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:23:59 -0000
Subject: Possessing the possessor, not Horcrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <dkb4ts+n7ic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkdv5f+pu5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142462

Steve <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> <snip>
> I could picture the final struggle between Harry as a test of 
> wills very much like the Brother-Wand-connection in GoF. In the 
> Final Battle, Voldemort has Harry down and weak, as a last 
> gesture of dominance or perhaps to gain the upper hand in battle 
> or perhaps to protect himself as he did in OotP, Voldemort 
> possesses Harry. Harry fights the possession with every ounce of 
> strength he has, he is determined to not be controlled and to 
> win, even though the odds are massively against him. In the
> struggle to throw off Voldemort's possession, Harry accidently 
> turns the tables and possesses Voldemort. <snip> It's Harry and 
> Voldemort, good and evil, locked in a struggle to the end. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Of course, this doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of 
> Harry sacrificing himself. I could fit this in very nicely with 
> my speculation that the final battle will occur in front of the 
> Veiled Archway of Death. <snip> I could picture Harry taking 
> control and dragging himself and Voldemort along with him 
> through the Veiled Archway. 
> 
> Extending my Veiled Archway thoughts, I'm not totally convinced 
> that if Harry goes through the Veil, he will not come out. We've 
> discussed this before and there is mythology for people going 
> 'beyond the Veil' and returning. I could live with Voldemort 
> being dragged down to Hell by the spirits of those he killed, 
> meanwhile, Harry meets Sirius, his parents, and Dumbledore and 
> after a few tearful hugs, his parents tell him it's not his time 
> and that he has to go back, back to the land of the living. 



HARRY THROUGH THE VEIL:

I have also speculated that Harry will take Voldemort through 
the 'veil'.   I think it is clear that Harry will not defeat LV 
with the Avada curse, it is Harry's bravery, loyalty and his LOVE 
that will bring about Voldemort's demise.

IMO I think Harry will sacrifice himself by taking LV through the 
veil.

The question becomes how can Harry accomplish this without dying? 
There has been specualtion about Harry's "odyssey" through the 
underworld, IMO once through the veil one cannot return, so 
the 'possession' angle is intriguing, Harry can enter through the 
veil and still be able to return to his human form.

But I have often pictured this scenario:

Nagini is with LV in this last scenario, LV unaware that Harry has 
destroyed his previous 5 horcruxes, is confident he can kill Harry.  
Nagini is the last horcrux and is destroyed-  I imagine with the 
help of Snape who may die or be seriously injured as a result of 
this confrontation.
With the death of Nagini LV realises that all of his horcruxes are 
destroyed as he is reduced to his ghost like form (reduced yet 
again to the meanest ghost), DD mentions this form on p. 509 of 
HBP, here LV still has his magical powers and brain in tact.

I think possesion of Harry is LV's last alternative, here is where 
the power of love that Harry possess will determine the fate of LV.

Harry will make the decision to go beyond the veil sacrificing his 
life to kill LV.

However, I do not think Harry will die.

I think Harry needs to go beyond the veil, I think he needs 
closure on the deaths of all the people he has cared for, I think 
here Harry can see Sirius, Lily, Dumbledore, James...and finally 
be free of guilt, free to live a long life without 'survivor's 
guilt'.

How this can happen, I cannot say, I do think that like Lily's 
sacrifice, Harry's sacrifice may envoke ancient magic powerful 
enough to save him, can love save his life again?

I have wondered if Harry could attempt to go beyond the veil, yet 
be pulled back by another, Harry dangling half in the mortal 
world, half in the underworld.  Maybe the souls of the underworld 
can carry LV into death and push Harry back to the mortal world?

In this scenario Harry does not need to be a horcrux, he becomes 
one inadvertantly as LV possessing Harry is LV's last chance for 
survival.

I do think Harry/horcrux theories are not without merit, but I 
think that JKR interviews about the Harry/LV connection make it 
reasonably clear that he is not a horcrux.  I also think that JKR 
told us as much through DD in the Horcruxes chapter of HBP.

In the scenario where Harry is held back from fully entering the 
veil, Harry would not be alone at the MOM; if this was the case LV 
could atttempt to possess Ron or Hermione as he possessed Harry in 
front of DD in OOTP, teasing Harry, daring him to battle while in possession of his closest friends.  

At this point Harry could bargain with LV, "take me" instead, then 
because he is uniquely qualified to resist being controlled by LV 
(as he resisted the imperius curse in GOF) he manages to keep his 
wits about him long enough to go through the veil, or tempt a 
death eater or member of the Order (as DD pleaded with Snape to 
kill him for the greater good) to kill him for the good of the 
wizarding world.

Again, I think Harry's love will prevent his death somehow, I 
think his sacrifice will enable him to live.

Harry has destroyed the horcruxes and he is battling LV in the 
death chamber.  Harry realises that the only way to "kill" LV is 
to take him through the veil.

"Szehms" 







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 22:28:06 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:28:06 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkdvuh+naov@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dke2tm+73lo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142463

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...>
wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > 
> > ...edited...
> > 
> > The only true possession ... is when  Voldemort possessed 
> > Harry in the Ministry of Magic ... the only  logical way I 
> > can see it is that Voldemort merged his body with Harry's. 
> > In the truest sense, two bodies became one. ... if Voldemort
> > had only mentally possessed Harry, then Voldemort ... While 
> > his mind was in Harry, his body would have been ... very 
> > vulnerable to attack by Dumbledore. ... In a sense, he was 
> > using Harry's body as a sheild.

 
> Ceridwen:
> I see possession as the deliberate overtaking of a body by a 
> spirit entity. I don't see physical bodies merging at all. I 
> have no idea what Voldemort was supposed to have done with his
> body at the MoM, other than to keep on fighting with it while 
> a part of him engaged Harry.  ....edited... Up until that point
> it's always been a mind thing.  I don't see why it would change.
> 
> Ceridwen.


bboyminn:

Well, you believe what you believe; I'm not trying to take that away
from you. I just see it differently.

In the MoM battle scene, why would Dumbledore pay any attention to
Voldemort(in Harry) at all, other than the fact that Voldemort was
talking. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Dumbledore
to destroy Voldemort's body and send him back to his pre-GoF state of
essential vapor. 

All the ground he gained since GoF would have been lost. I'm sure he
could eventually get a body back again, but he's limited on his
Bone-Flesh-Blood Potion/Charm options. He could have done some
variation of that, but he could never recreated it to the degree that
he currently has.

Without his body, Voldemort can't hold a wand and can't perform magic.
True while he is in Harry's body, he can use Harry's body to carry out
acts for him, but Harry isn't really cooperating. Once Harry drove him
out, where would he go, what would he do? Would his Death Eaters still
follow him if he was powerless? Enquiring minds want to know.

And, if as you say, Voldemort's body kept fighting then why didn't
Dumbledore keep fighting back? If the fighting body was there and was
a real threat, it's pretty hard for Dumbledore to ignore.

For one corporeal person to possess another, it makes no sense, if the
possessor leaves his body behind and vulnerable.

Now, I'm not saying possession by mind/spirit/whatever only is not
possible; because most likely it is. I'm just saying that's not what
Voldemort did to Harry in the Ministry of Magic Battle ...or at least,
that's what I'm speculating.

I can understand that you don't like the natural/unnatural dynamics of
two bodies physically merging, but as unlikely and illogical as it may
seem, that's still how I see that scene. The alternative just leaves
too many unanswered questions.

Of course, that's just my own wild unfounded opinion, but none the
less, there it is.

Steve/bboyminn







From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 23:03:38 2005
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6gls+m5pq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051103230338.57847.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142464

--- dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Again, I am simply not buying that the choices for Sirius were to 
> live depressed or to die depressed. It seems to me that if 
> Dumbledore would simply pay more attention then Sirius' choices 
> could have been to live or die of course, but not necessarily 
> depressed. 
> 
> Oh, and of course Harry has invisibility cloak. I think he would
> not have minded giving it to Sirius if he needed to go on a 
> mission undiscovered.

Well, maybe the answer is: there really wasn't any task that Sirius
was qualified to perform.  

Granted he's good in a fight (although being the only one killed in
the Battle at the MoM might not look that way), but how many times
would the Order get into a street fight?  It certainly wasn't their
strategy in OOTP.

Sirius' personal tragedy was that he was irrelevant to the fight the
Order was currently waging and he was increasingly irrelevant to
Harry, who had actually outgrown him without realizing it.  (Although
I think Sirius did realize it and tried to adjust his behaviour
accordingly.)  

If Lucius Malfoy knew he was an animagus, then rest assured the other
DE's knew too.  And he could thank Molly for that info; on a crowded
train platform, "Act more like a dog, Sirius!"  Great move there,
Molly; why didn't you stop off at the Daily Prophet and leave a press
release while you were at it?

I guess I really don't see why members of the Order should have
adjusted their busy lives to make a grown man feel good about himself
when everyone knew the dangers out there and the importance of
secrecy.  So he was bored.  There are worse things than being bored. 


Magda




	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  3 23:10:43 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:10:43 -0000
Subject: Through the Veil (Was: The Iron Fist of Will -  (more) additional thoughts)
In-Reply-To: <dkdkdn+d2ab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dke5dj+ino5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142465

bboyminn wrote:
<snip> Now Sirius came through the Veil under special circumstances
too. His spirit didn't pass through after he was dead; he went through
as a fully living being; body, mind, and spirit all still merged
together; fully alive and fully functional. Further more, Sirius's
body still remains behind the Veil. The way for Sirius to have died
properly would have been for his spirit to join the land of the dead,
while his body fell out of the other side of the Veil, back into the
physical world.
> 
> Perhaps, Sirius is trapped by his /special circumstances/ behind the
Veil. It's a stretch, but perhaps as a single body or a single spirit,
he can not cross the boundary between the living and the dead. That
is, he can't cross back over to the land of the living as a single
body/spirit. Admittedly I am reaching here for an explanation, and am
coming up with a relatively weak one, but I can't be expected to have
all the answers.
> 
> So, the solution is for Sirius to touch Voldemort. That leaves Harry
a path into another body without having to spend any time not sharing
a body. Once, we can speculate, Harry's body stands on its own, it is
vulnerable to death, or vulnerable to being trapped behind the Veil as
Sirius is. But by moving to Sirius's body with no 'in-between' time,
he remains safe. With Harry in control and his own body protected,
Harry marches Sirius's body out from behind the Veil. On the living
side of the Veil, Harry separates from Sirius and they are both very
much alive and safe. Although, it is possible to speculate that
Sirius's body will drop dead when Harry exists it, that's just a
detail and one I can live with. <snip>


Carol responds:
I like this solution because it unites the possession theory with
another important thematic element, the Veil and the spirits beyond
it, and because it allows Harry to defeat Voldemort without using an
AK and without dying himself. 

But I don't think that Harry can restore Sirius Black to life. JKR has
made it clear that Black is dead and that there was "a reason why [he]
had to die." If he is in fact "properly dead," his soul would have to
remain beyond the Veil when (improperly dead) Harry, using Black's
body as a temporary container for his own soul, steps outside the
Veil. And once Harry's soul left that body, it (the body) would
finally be available for a funeral and Harry could say good-bye to
Sirius as he did to Dumbledore. 

This scenario would very effectively demonstrate "why Sirius had to
die," providing a better thematic/plot reason than the mere loss of a
mentor for those who are having trouble accepting it. (I personally
think that his death, like Cedric's and Dumbledore's, already serves
an important thematic purpose in helping prepare Harry for the reality
of war and loss that he must fully understand before he can take the
burden of saving the WW onto his own shoulders, but then I'm not an
adherent of SAD DENIAL).

So the pieces fit nicely together: We have Harry triumphing over
Voldie through Love, fulfilling the Prophecy without dying himself;
the Veil playing the key role many of us thought it would; and Harry
seeing Sirius again without any restoration to life of a "properly
dead" character (which would violate the laws of the Potterverse).
Dumbledore and the other dead mentors could also have a small but
satisfactory role, and Harry would see that death really is "the next
great adventure" and not something to fear. (DD was right and LV was
wrong. Hooray!) 

But where does the locked room come in? Surely it should fit into the
picture somewhere? And what about Snape, who is supposed to have a
crucial role to play in Book 7?

Carol, who hopes it will be Snape who tells Harry to possess Voldemort
and walk through the Veil







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Fri Nov  4 00:06:29 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:06:29 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: War
In-Reply-To: <dkdfkm+4avt@eGroups.com>
References: <dkdfkm+4avt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <436AA605.8030600@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142466

kaitoujuliet wrote:

>>Sometimes war is not optional and it requires violent and ugly
>>acts from moral people.
> 
> Wellllll...that may be true in Real Life.  But in a fictional universe, 
> war can be anything the author wants it to be.  It can be optional or 
> not optional, just or unjust or questionable.  A fictional character 
> *may* be able to engage in war without becoming ugly.  It's all in the 
> spin the author gives it.
> 
> I humbly suggest that it would be more fruitful to ask what war means 
> within J.K. Rowling's fictional universe, what Harry's decision means, 
> and what the book is saying about the issues involved.

Well, in the terms of war movies it was fairly obvious to me that JKR 
thinks more in terms of "Alexander Nevsky" than "Apocalypse Now" if you 
see what I mean.

To go back to the original idea that the talk between Harry and 
Dumbledore was somehow scary and immoral, that's really depends if she 
sees the Order vs. Voldemort war as a just one, more similar to WW2 than 
to Vietnam. If she does, then I don't see how it's immoral even within 
Christian morality.

This most Christian of books, Narnia, has Aslan giving Peter a sword 
before the battle, encouraging him to kill his first enemy, and the only 
thing he wants him to be ashamed of is "not wiping his sword".

I think some readers have this preconceived idea of Dumbledore as a kind 
and jolly grandfather based on Harry's impression in book 1. But Harry 
grows, and learns and understands more of Dumbledore. Instead of 
shouting "who is this impostor and what'd he done with the 'real' 
Dumbledore", "the Dumbledore I know and love would never do that" etc. 
maybe we should take into account the impressions from the rest of the 
books.

Irene



From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 00:11:50 2005
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkai7r+275e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051104001150.75297.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142467

 
> SSSusan:
> Well, yes, indeed he did this  after Harry's letter which spoke 
> about the scar hurting.  Sirius CARES about Harry, who is a *child*
> still.  A parentless child to whom he is godfather.  A child who's 
> obviously in danger and whom this godfather has been able to DO 
> nothing about for 12 years.  Now he has the chance to DO something.
> He has an obligation, and Harry wants him in his life.  True,
> Sirius 
> could have elected to stay put, to stay safe, so that he'd have a 
> better chance of being there later on... but how many of us would 
> have done that?  And, as Nora pointed out, how many of us would've 
> called that cowardly?  Catch-22.  

Ah, yes, Sirius cares so much for Harry.  He LOVES him SO much.  God,
how lucky Harry is to have such a wonderful godfather!  Makes me
break down in sniffles, it really does.  (Excuse me while I find a
Kleenex...)

I guess I'm just a mean rotten person because my response to this
is...so what?  Molly cares for and loves Harry too, and she's
certainly not above criticism because of it.  

Sirius adds to Harry's stress level in both GOF and OOTP with his
"I'll be right there!" responses.  Harry chastises himself and
purposely downplays his problems out of concern for Sirius.  Sirius
knows that it stresses Harry when he takes risks but keeps suggesting
it anyway and finally makes his nasty little crack about Harry being
less like James than he thought.  Yup, you can just feel the love.

Mundungus Fletcher puts Harry's and Dudley's lives in danger and
instead of taking him apart and feeding him to Buckbeak limb by limb
like a good godfather should, Dung gets an invitation to dinner.  

Does Sirius spend time with Harry over the summer or at Christmas? 
Quality, guy-bonding time?  No, Harry is in the company of the
Weasleys or Sirius is described as spending hours alone with
Buckbeak.  No bonding, no passing on information about James and Lily
that Harry might like to know, no asking Harry to help him carry the
bucket of rats upstairs - nothing.  

Throughout GOF and OOTP, Harry feels closest to Sirius when Sirius is
far away and inaccessible.  Harry liked the IDEA of having a
godfather a lot more than he liked dealing with one.  I believe it's
clear Sirius knew this and was trying to re-work the relationship
into one of equals - something that Molly and Hermione saw as
mistaking Harry for James.  Dumbledore says that Harry saw Sirius as
a combination older brother/uncle and I think that reflects the shift
that Sirius was trying to bring about, a shift that would give their
relationship some releveance.

Yes, if it makes everyone feel better: James and Lily should have had
their butts kicked for agreeing to the whole PP-as-SK idea (and of
course they personally paid the price for it).  But Sirius does say
he talked them into it which implies that it took some effort.  And
Sirius never shirks from blaming himself for the whole thing: "I as
good as killed them."  

Sirius is just too reckless and too short-term in his thinking to be
trusted with the guardianship of Harry he desperately wants.  This is
a guy who just can't stop blurting out things that make his
colleagues roll their eyes and think "Oh grow up!".  His response to
the news that Harry and the Trio have set up the DA is typical: he's
proud of Harry because it's just the kind of thing he and James would
have done to rag a teacher they hated.  That's the kind of remark
Sirius has never learned not to make, if he wants to impress people
as someone mature and competent to be a parent.

I think Carol nailed it perfectly in her posts.

Magda


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Fri Nov  4 00:32:58 2005
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:32:58 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <63378ee70511031338o26b1439ak72b1b5325d7e2764@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dkea7q+m5un@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142468

> >  The 3ed and final stage is red. Rubeus Hagrid's name indicates 
> > red or ruddy in nature. For this reason, Granger has predicted 
> > that Hagrid will be among the dead in the final book. I tend 
> > to agree with the major points of the theory, but I believe 
> > there are other reasons that Hagrid might die. Hagrid would 
> > be a good choice for a surprising end. Throughout the books, I
> >  believe that the readers have been steered into seeing Hagrid 
> > as more or less an equal of the trio. Even when he is a 
> > teacher, he does not radiate any sense of authority. If anyone
> > has any thoughts on this point I would love to hear them.
> > truthbeauty1
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that 'red' made his mind go to Hagrid.
> It makes me think of the Weasleys much more easily. Red hair.
> - Lady Indigo

I didn't choose "norbertsmummy" as an ID for nothing .. esp since 
I'm a guy. 

Yes, I think Hagrid is being set up for a suprise ending. he has 
withstood to many curses and hexes from Umbridge (OOTP) and DE (HBP) 
to be killed off too easily. For those that have read "Fantastic 
Beasts And Where To Find Them", JKR is keeping things in the 
background to reveal later.

Just like the Thestralls in OOTP explaining the carriages in COS, 
there are Fantastic Beast skins that repell spells. I wouldn't be 
suprised if Hagrid wears such a lining to his overcoat.

After all, giants were killed by wizards before. Hagrid's giant 
blood is not enough to explain his "luck" so far.

Nonetheless, the DE want to try and bring in Dragons, Hagrid would 
willingly jump between Harry and a Horntail, and no spell repelling 
hide would help. -(of course, Hagrid would see it as trying to go up 
and hug the dragon ... lol)
~aussie~






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 00:35:19 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:35:19 -0000
Subject: The mechanics of possession (Was: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spir
In-Reply-To: <dke2tm+73lo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkeac7+93m7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142469

bboyminn wrote:
<snip> 
> In the MoM battle scene, why would Dumbledore pay any attention to
Voldemort(in Harry) at all, other than the fact that Voldemort was
talking. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Dumbledore
to destroy Voldemort's body and send him back to his pre-GoF state of
essential vapor. 
<snip>
> Without his body, Voldemort can't hold a wand and can't perform
magic. True while he is in Harry's body, he can use Harry's body to
carry out acts for him, but Harry isn't really cooperating. Once Harry
drove him out, where would he go, what would he do? Would his Death
Eaters still follow him if he was powerless? <snip>
 
> For one corporeal person to possess another, it makes no sense, if
the possessor leaves his body behind and vulnerable. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree that it would make no sense for Voldemort to leave a
vulnerable body behind when he possesses someone, not just in that
scene but at any time after he acquires a body. His body would be an
empty shell like the soul-sucked Barty Crouch's, and anyone (even a
disaffected DE like Wormtail) could destroy it, leaving him once again
as Vapor!mort.

I think we've already seen him merging bodies/identities not only with
Harry in the MoM but with a much more willing and cooperative host,
his own living Horcrux, Nagini. Snape says in OoP that apparently
Voldemort was possessing the snake (Snape doesn't identify it as
Nagini, but I'm sure it is). That's why Harry seemed to be inside the
snake (he was in the mind of both the possessed and the possessor) and
why the snake had two conflicting impulses (to bite and to do the job,
which I assume was trying to get the Prophecy). Had Possesssed!Nagini
succeeded in getting to the Prophecy room, LV would have needed to
leave her and use his own body to pick up the Prophecy orb. He could
hardly do it using a snake's body.

It's important that the scene with the pale green smoke becoming a
two-headed snake "in essence divided" comes almost immediately after
this scene. It relates to Voldemort's divided nature but IMO has
nothing to do with Harry. Instead it relates to the snake in Harry's
vision, which is both Voldemort and Nagini, both Dark wizard and
serpent--not just a possessed Nagini (as in the vision) but a Nagini
sharing LV's essence even when she isn't possessed. 

IOW, Dumbledore realizes at exactly that moment that Nagini is a
Horcrux. But of course he doesn't explain that to Harry, who wouldn't
understand and whose concern at the moment is for Mr. Weasley's
endangered life. And of course, time is of the essence in saving Mr.
W. and destroying Voldemort can wait.

Carol, hoping that this evidence supports Steve's view that physical
as well as mental possession is possible (Sorry to disagree with you,
Ceridwen! But it's the WW and the laws of physics are constantly being
violated, right? If a man can transfigure himself into a little rat,
why can't another man merge his body with that of the person he's
possessing?)






From zehms at aol.com  Fri Nov  4 00:11:30 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:11:30 EST
Subject: War
Message-ID: <15.50a079ff.309c0132@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142470

IMO the primary offensive in the upcoming 'war' will be at Hogwarts.

All that stood between LV and Hogwarts was Dumbledore, with Dumbledore's 
death I think that LV will feel confident he can overtake Hogwarts and will devote 
a great deal of his resources to this endeavor.

I do believe that Hogwarts is the apple of Voldemort's eye.  

1) LV likely feels that controlling Hogwarts is his ancestoral 'right' as the 
only remaining heir of Slytherin.  
2) Hogwarts is magically powerful, it is the only instituation he was unable 
to control in the previous wizarding war, and according to Hagrid, DD was all 
that stood between LV and Hogwarts.
3) Hogwarts is symbolic, and we all know how much LV values symbolism.  
Hogwarts is home to magical relics, magical history.
4) and he who controls the children controls the future....LV 's desire to 
rid the wizarding world of Mudbloods, training only pure blood wizards, could be 
fufilled were Hogwarts under his control.
5) Hogwarts has sentimental value to LV, like Harry, LV viewed Hogwarts as 
his refuge from his muggle life that had to be endured while on Summer holiday.  
Hogwarts is where LV realised he was the heir of Slytherin and how powerful a 
wizard he truly was.

IMO by the time Harry battles LV the wizarding world of Harry Potter will be 
near total defeat, with death eaters and various dark creatures attacking 
Hogwarts and Hogwarts very close to falling into the hands of LV, LV will feel 
'too confident' when he comes face to face with harry, this will be to his 
detriment.

Also, Harry will truly feel the full weight of his task as he knows that he 
is the only person who can save this world.  

I think JKR wants the four houses to unite, the songs of the sorting hat in 
OOTP and HBP make this clear,  The best way to achieve unity is to have to 
fight together for the very existence of Hogwarts as they know it, and to fight in 
honor of DD.

JKR also wants the wizarding schools to unite, I think that Beaubaxton and 
even Durmstrang could come to the aid of Hogwarts uniting wizards 
internationally, as they know that if Hogwarts falls, LV won't stop there.

Here in this phase of the war I think the centaurs, the mermaids, some 
giants, the goblins will take sides and stand against LV.

I also think we will see Neville, Luna, Ginny, George and Fred and other DA 
members show outstanding courage and bravery.

I think HRH will will be doing there part searching and destroying horcruxes 
along with members of the Order.

I don't think JKR will start off with LV attacking Hogwarts, but by mid way I 
think LV will launch an offensive.

In HBP Draco told Snape that "better people" than he were helping him, I 
think that a minor character at Hogwarts could be a spy, perhaps a perpherial 
professor ;like Sinistra. This spy will help undermine Hogwarts and compromise it 
before the attack.

This is my speculation, it sure would be exciting, but nerve wracking as the 
possibility of beloved characters being murdered will increase will full out 
war.

Zehms





From zehms at aol.com  Fri Nov  4 00:25:56 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:25:56 EST
Subject: Can Harry kill LV? Was: Why can't Harry?
Message-ID: <238.4e94fb.309c0494@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142471

I firmly believe that Harry will not "kill" LV with a 'killing curse'.  DD 
mentions numerous times the power that Harry has, the power which the dark lord 
knows not, this power is LOVE.

On page 500 of HBP Dumbledore tells Harry that as far as he knew, therefore 
as far as LV knew, no wizard had done more than spilt his soul in two.  I 
believe DD is referring to Grindelwald in this passage.

JKR has stated in interviews that the importance of the defeat of Grindelwald 
will be revealed in book 7.

I think Grindelwald was the first wizard to create a horcrux, I believe DD 
discovered this, destroyed the horcrux and then defeated Grindelwald.

IMO  DD likely found a more creative way to destroy Grindelwald, I think 
Harry will do the same.

This isn't to say there will not all out wizarding war (I think Hogwarts will 
be attacked directly) but I think Harry's power lies not in his ability to 
perform unforgiveable curses, were the final battle between LV and Harry to be 
based on dueling skills alone, Harry would certainly lose.

Harry has a power foreign to LV, that power is his ability to be a good pure 
person despite all the hardships of his life.  

LV was nearly defeated by Lily's act of love, it will be Harry's sacrifice 
that will ultimately destroy him in the end IMO.  I only hope Harry can still 
survive.

Zehms






From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Fri Nov  4 03:28:13 2005
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 03:28:13 -0000
Subject: Riddle House
Message-ID: <dkekgd+clqp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142472

Luckdragon:
Does Dumbledore own the riddle house?
I know there were past discussions about the possibility of Lucius 
Malfoy possibly owning the house, but upon rereading GOF, I noted that 
the new owner continued to pay Frank Bryce to do the gardening even 
into his old age, at which point weeds were growing up everywhere. I 
don't think Lucius would be so kind as to pay someone to keep the 
garden, let alone someone who was no longer up to the job. Did DD 
think there was a horcrux hidden there? Would he not have performed 
some kind of magic to let him know if LV turned up there as he did in 
GOF?






From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Fri Nov  4 03:35:35 2005
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 03:35:35 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Will
Message-ID: <dkeku7+j7sn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142473

Luckdragon:
I'm sure we will see something of Aberforth in book 7, either as a 
member of the OOTP or in regards to DD's estate. Does anyone dare to 
guess what DD may leave Harry, if anything, in his will. Maybe a 
privately owned secret time turner, DD's pensieve, Fawkes, another 
magic diary allowing Harry access to DD's memories/knowledge?






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 07:17:08 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:17:08 -0000
Subject: War - Taking the School and Students
In-Reply-To: <15.50a079ff.309c0132@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dkf1tk+egq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142474

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, zehms at a... wrote:
>
> IMO the primary offensive in the upcoming 'war' will be at 
> Hogwarts.
> 
> All that stood between LV and Hogwarts was Dumbledore, with 
> Dumbledore's death I think that LV will feel confident he 
> can overtake Hogwarts and will devote a great deal of his 
> resources to this endeavor.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> This is my speculation, it sure would be exciting, but nerve
> wracking as the possibility of beloved characters being murdered
> will increase will full out war.
> 
> Zehms


bboyminn:

I have only a couple of points to add. 

Despite that fact that the story options are now very limited, there
are still a lot of possibilities. We know that standard 'school year'
tale will not be one of them. But, yes, I really can see Voldemort
attacking the school. But again, our story options are limited to one
book and one year of book time, and a lot of story/plot points that
need resolving. I have to wonder if there is enough time for an attack
on Hogwarts to take place? I really don't know. Maybe we have already
seen our 'attack on Hogwarts' in the last book, but then again, that
could just be the warm up.

As to Voldemort's motivation, keep in mind that who ever holds the
school, and more importantly its students, holds the wizard world.

With Voldemort controlling the school and holding all its students
hostage, no one in the wizard world would dare defy him. 

So, I guess what I am saying is that it would certainly be better if
Voldemort attacked the school over the summer when it was undefended
and easy to take. But that gives him no strategic advantage. It's a
lot of work and a lot of risk for a comfortable place to live and a
school that virtually no one will want to go to. However, if Voldemort
take over the school while the children are there, then he has all the
strategic resources he needs to hold the entire wizard world hostage.

It would seem, at least to Voldemort and the DE's, that if they take
the school and students, they have won the war. Though, I seriously
doubt that the wizard world will lay down and take it quite as easily
as Voldemort expects. 

Regardless, its a plot direction with great story potential.

Steve/bboyminn







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  4 11:13:13 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:13:13 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dke2tm+73lo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkffo9+8eh9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142475

> bboyminn:
> Well, you believe what you believe; I'm not trying to take that away
> from you. I just see it differently.

Ceridwen:
Oh, I will.  No worries on that!

> bboyminn (with several snips): 
> This would have been the perfect opportunity for Dumbledore
> to destroy Voldemort's body and send him back to his pre-GoF state 
of
> essential vapor. 
> 
> Without his body, Voldemort can't hold a wand and can't perform 
magic.
> Once Harry drove him
> out, where would he go, what would he do? Would his Death Eaters 
still
> follow him if he was powerless? 
> And, if as you say, Voldemort's body kept fighting then why didn't
> Dumbledore keep fighting back? If the fighting body was there and 
was
> a real threat, it's pretty hard for Dumbledore to ignore.
> 
> For one corporeal person to possess another, it makes no sense, if 
the
> possessor leaves his body behind and vulnerable.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying possession by mind/spirit/whatever only is not
> possible; because most likely it is. I'm just saying that's not what
> Voldemort did to Harry in the Ministry of Magic Battle ...or at 
least,
> that's what I'm speculating.
> 
> I can understand that you don't like the natural/unnatural dynamics 
of
> two bodies physically merging, but as unlikely and illogical as it 
may
> seem, that's still how I see that scene. The alternative just leaves
> too many unanswered questions.
> 
> Of course, that's just my own wild unfounded opinion, but none the
> less, there it is.

Ceridwen:
While non-corporeal possession leaves too many unanswered questions 
(such as the problem of what Voldemort did with his body while he was 
in Harry, which is a decent-sized problem), I still have to disagree.

When JKR puts in something that is different than we might expect, 
she gives an explanation.  A cat is a cat, unless it's a Kneazle 
(Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), or unless it's a 
Transfiguration Mistress (PS/SS).

A dog is a dog when it comes to dinner with Aunt Marge.  But when 
it's a Grim, the concept is explained.  And when it's a wizard, we 
already have the explanation from two books previous, when a cat is 
really a professor.  Further, we learn about unregistered Animagi, 
and that the rat really isn't a rat but a rat-fink.

Harry speaks to snakes (PS/SS).  That's explained one book later 
during the dueling scene and after (CoS).  He is able to make the 
glass on the snake's habitat disappear, which is a manifestation of 
his wizard status, explained in PS/SS.

Dementors appear on the train to Hogwarts (PoA) and are immediately 
expelled and explained by Lupin.  We see another Dementor attack in 
OotP, but it's odd in that it occurrs in Little Whinging.  Dolores 
Umbridge explains at the end of the same book.

We know about brooms, wands and pointy hats being associated with 
witches and wizards, no explanation.  Lupin is a werewolf, but we 
already have that culturally (The Wolfman) so there is little 
explanation, only agreement with what has culturally gone before.  
The idea of Potions is one we readily associate with witches and 
wizards, the fact that wands are optional is explained.  What we 
bring to the story due to cultural influences is not explained, or 
barely explained where her vision contradicts or builds upon existing 
non-HP information:  Greyback's liking of his status, and lurking 
around to optimize his chance at attacking the right victim is one 
example, we're culturally attuned to the tragic werewolf who hates 
his existence, Lyle(?) Talbot, Remus Lupin.  We're also informed of 
the existence of a colony of werewolves when the popular culture has 
Talbot as a loner.

Culturally, we know that possession is by spirit/soul entities.  The 
Exorcist, stories in the Bible, and other things.  I am not aware of 
a physical posession that doesn't involve some parody of a pregnancy 
(Alien).  We've seen three examples I can think of where someone is 
possessed: TR's possession of Ginny in CoS; Voldemort's (and 
subsequently Harry's) possession of Nagini in OotP (don't you feel 
sorry for the snake, having two people piggy-backing in her brain?); 
Harry at the MoM at the end of OotP.  And in none of those cases does 
JKR think to inform us that, cultural expectations aside, the 
possession is physical.

I doubt if she even thought about what LV's body was doing while he 
was possessing Harry.  She naturally had Dumbledore focus on Harry, 
since his judgement where Harry is concerned, is skewed by 
affection.  Which Dumbledore explains later, though he doesn't 
mention the possession scene as one of his failings that I recall.  I 
think she's relying on our cultural perceptions to explain 
possession, since it's her culture as well.  Any plot hole arising 
from it, like the whole What Was LV Doing While He Possessed Harry 
thing, is just that, a plot hole JKR didn't fill up.

That's why I can't buy possession by the body of the possessor.  
There's nothing to back it up in our culture, and there's no 
explanation for something she's invented outside of our cultural 
experiences.

That's just me, though.  She also introduced horcruxes like boulders 
falling on a mountain road.

Ceridwen.







From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Nov  4 13:11:07 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:11:07 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <20051104001150.75297.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkfmlb+po9m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142476

SSSusan:
> > Well, yes, indeed he did this ? after Harry's letter which spoke 
> > about the scar hurting.  Sirius CARES about Harry, who is a 
> > *child* still.  A parentless child to whom he is godfather.  A 
> > child who's obviously in danger and whom this godfather has been 
> > able to DO nothing about for 12 years.  Now he has the chance to 
> > DO something. He has an obligation, and Harry wants him in his 
> > life.  True, Sirius could have elected to stay put, to stay safe, 
> > so that he'd have a better chance of being there later on... but 
> > how many of us would have done that?  And, as Nora pointed out, 
> > how many of us would've called that cowardly?  Catch-22.  

Magda:
> Ah, yes, Sirius cares so much for Harry.  He LOVES him SO much.  
> God, how lucky Harry is to have such a wonderful godfather!  Makes 
> me break down in sniffles, it really does.  (Excuse me while I find 
> a Kleenex...)
> 
> I guess I'm just a mean rotten person because my response to this
> is...so what?  Molly cares for and loves Harry too, and she's
> certainly not above criticism because of it.  


SSSusan:
I can't quite believe I'm responding, but since your comments were 
written as a response to a portion of a post of mine, I feel a bit of 
an obligation to do so.  First off, can you point me to where I said 
that Sirius should be "above criticism" because he loved Harry?  In 
the post from which the above quote came, I agreed with Carol in a 
couple of spots re: things Sirius did which were NOT smart or helpful.

Second, the *main* point of my very lengthy post was that we should 
be critical of all characters in the same way; not to defend one at 
all costs while trashing another at all costs.  As a "weirdo" who 
both likes Sirius and believes in Snape's loyalty to the White Hats, 
my point was that I think it's possible to see fault in characters we 
like or, overall, support.  Sirius had failings; Snape has flaws.  
Sirius, imo, cared about Harry and wanted to protect and help him.  
Snape, imo, cared about DD and wanted -- still wants, I believe -- to 
help him.  

Not sure how any of that showed me as believing Sirius was "above 
criticism."  I believe we can be critical of each character, even 
those we enjoy or like.

As an aside, I believe, based on what we've been given so far and on 
what Jo's presented us in interviews & at her site, that love is 
gonna play a big part in the series' conclusion.  Whether people like 
it or not, I believe it's coming.  I'm glad I'm fine with that, 
personally.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who thinks sarcasm really isn't a very helpful 
thing many times.









From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  4 13:19:33 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:19:33 -0000
Subject: Through the Veil (Was: The Iron Fist of Will -  (more) additional thoughts)
In-Reply-To: <dke5dj+ino5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkfn55+n1in@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142477


*(snip)*
Valky:
> Okay Just for good measure here's my third and favourite (yet
> fanficcy/fantasy) version, not logical entirely, but it has all the
> elements I wish to see.
><snip>
>  Harry finally reunited with his parents
> discovers that he will not be able to stay with them because he is in
> a state of limbo and they are properly dead, and they also discover
> that Harry can't get back out without a body that has come through
> the front door.<snip>. SO his only way out is to
> take Sirius with him.

Ceridwen:
I don't get how Harry bringing Sirius's body out of the veil would
bring Sirius back. The body would now be available for burial and
proper mourning, 


Valky:
I hadn't rifled through the logistics of this option before I posted
it, so I appreciate and understand your contention Ceridwen. Option
three, as I said, is my fantasy ending, I'd be thrilled if the series
ended on these notes but I can't say it's canonically backed up to the
letter. At least not just yet. ;D

I agree that bringing Sirius' body back through the veil could simply
mean that Harry brings him back dead. It is possible that, assuming
Harry goes through the veil untouched and meets with Sirius, that
either Sirius is 'too properly dead' to come back to life, or
otherwise unable to walk back through the veil alive. OTOH this could
still make a good story IMO which could like something like this -
Harry's conciousness behind the veil is different to Sirius'
conciousness, because Harry has not technically 'died'. So Harry can
go back the way he came but he cannot pass bodily through the barrier
between the worlds without dying unless there is another body present
which he can use to get through the barrier. 

This scenario would be intensely bangy, because Harry would have to
Possess Sirius, and possession is very painful for the possessed (see
Harry in the MOM). Sirius would die in agony but possibly save Harry
from a fate worse than death by doing so. 



Ceridwen:
but two spirits just couldn't leave the veil, even
if they're in one body. If they could, then Sirius would have
theoretically (IMO) been able to leave when he fell through. 


Valky:
If we refer to the myths of the underworld, the souls of the dead
drink from the river Lethe, which erases their memory so they cannot
find their way back out of Hades, Sirius having gone through the veil
bodily alone could have been said to have drunk from this river, while
Harry has not, or IOW if the underworld myth is followed, as I expect
it will be, then the reason Sirius can not return is because he has
'forgotten where he came in'. While Harry, who has entered differently
'remembers'.

It could plotwise be explained, I suppose, by the notion that Harry's
'conciousness' is still attached to his life - similar to your
speculation - and that it is that conciousness itself that makes it
possible to go back through the veil. 



Ceridwen:
 I can see a possible scenario where, the longer Harry's
consciousness remains behind the veil, the more of his soul/spirit
energy follow him (which would be what was keeping his consciousness
intact), and that sooner or later, if he stayed long enough, his non-
physical parts would join him there permanently, and the body would
drop dead.

I could probably get into the soul/spirit differences again, though I
got completely lost when we did that before. But even if the
consciousness belongs to one or the other, I would expect that both
must be present in some measure for Harry (not the body) to really
be 'beyond the veil'. If consciousness is soul, then, the lack of
spirit being with him would tie him to his body, something like a
naturally-functioning horcrux. If it's the spirit which holds
consciousness, then the lack of soul would anchor the root of
consciousness back in the body. 


Valky:
I would say I see it the opposite way. I would say that conciousness
is *not* soul in the Potterverse but rather the power/tool of the body
mind and soul. And I would guess that possession is a power of
conciousness and not soul mind or body individually.

Lets break it down into the powers that Voldemort transferred to Harry - 
There is Parsel Tongue which relates to Voldemorts Blood, I would
relate that to soul, myself.
Then there is Legilimency which is definitely a power of the mind.
That leaves Body and I suspect that this is the scar on Harry which
uniquely qualifies him to destroy Horcruxes with 'terrible curses' on
them. I am very happy with that but it is of course debatable.

Now if we assume that, and then assume that Possession is a power of
the conciousness, I would then say that possession engages body mind
and soul. Or IOW The whole of Harry goes through the veil intact. The
big difference for Harry is that his conciousness is not subject to
the usual effects of death because it is shielded by Voldemort, and he
retains his anchor to life which is hidden within the conciousness. 

I am not sure how that will work plotwise, maybe it will have to do
with the two-way mirror. 

 
Ceridwen:
It's interesting to think that all of Harry's parental figures who
have been taken from him, supposedly to force him into the lone
hero's journey, would be there at the end, aiding him as if they were
still part of the living, right where they would have been if they
had not died. Instead of removing them, if this is going to be the
scenario, JKR has placed them at the optimum place to give Harry the
support he needs to defeat LV altogether, to get the deepest wish of
his heart (to see his loved ones), and to find the strength to carry
on without them, or to enter into their world beyond the veil.

Valky:
I only wrote it into the scenario above where Sirius dies in pain to
save Harry, but I think that whatever happens Harry (and Sirius) if
they walk back out of the veil will do it in agony. 
Again I refer to an underworld myth where Orpheus was told he could
lead his wife out of Hades but he was not to look back on her or he
would be stuck their for ever. It was agony for him as he had not seen
his wife in many years and had missed her so much that he couldn't
bear not to look at her. He did look back and was trapped in Hades
forever. If Harry returns through the veil it will be the same for him
in that it will hurt very much to leave.


"Szehms":
I think possesion of Harry is LV's last alternative, here is where
the power of love that Harry possess will determine the fate of LV.

Harry will make the decision to go beyond the veil sacrificing his
life to kill LV.

Valky:
I think that Harry will have to possess Voldemort to do this. If he is
merely possessed by Voldemort, Harry will have no control over his own
body, and I am sure Voldemort will not try to possess Harry again
without protecting himself or trying some measure to avoid what
happened in the MOM in OOtP. 


"Szehms":
However, I do not think Harry will die.
<snip>

How this can happen, I cannot say, I do think that like Lily's
sacrifice, Harry's sacrifice may envoke ancient magic powerful
enough to save him, can love save his life again?

Valky:
By going through the veil in Voldemorts body I am sure Harry will be
making a genuine sacrifice, after all, he only knows that you cannot
come back through the veil. If Harry does this and survives he has no
way of knowing beforehand that he isn't sacrificing his own life. I
can rationalise that in this way Harry's Love and sacrifice *does*
save him.


"Szehms":
I have wondered if Harry could attempt to go beyond the veil, yet
be pulled back by another, Harry dangling half in the mortal
world, half in the underworld. Maybe the souls of the underworld
can carry LV into death and push Harry back to the mortal world?
<snip>

In the scenario where Harry is held back from fully entering the
veil, Harry would not be alone at the MOM; if this was the case LV
could atttempt to possess Ron or Hermione as he possessed Harry in
front of DD in OOTP, teasing Harry, daring him to battle while in
possession of
his closest friends.

Valky:
I have imagined a similar scenario to your's which involves Voldemort
possessing Ginny, Voldemort then attacks Harry with Ginny's body
knowing that Harry will *not* kill Ginny to get to him. Harry somehow
ends up possessing Nagini knowing that Voldemort will not destroy his
Horcrux to get to Harry. 

However this puts Ginny in some very deep water, Voldemort could just
kill her, and I haven't thought of a way to get her out of the
situation yet. OTOH I like Harry possessing Voldemort better than I
like Harry possessing Nagini, so an alternative scenario using
Parseltongue etc would be preferable anyway. 


"Szehms":
At this point Harry could bargain with LV, "take me" instead, then
because he is uniquely qualified to resist being controlled by LV
(as he resisted the imperius curse in GOF) he manages to keep his
wits about him long enough to go through the veil, or tempt a
death eater or member of the Order (as DD pleaded with Snape to
kill him for the greater good) to kill him for the good of the
wizarding world.

Valky:
I don't think Harry will try it, I am pretty sure he won't believe
Voldemort will spare his friends if he pleads. This is why I am also
sure that Nagini will have to be there, knowing how much LV fears
death I think his last Horcrux would be the best leverage for
negotiations. :D




bboymn:
Perhaps, Sirius is trapped by his /special circumstances/ behind the
Veil. It's a stretch, but perhaps as a single body or a single spirit,
he can not cross the boundary between the living and the dead. That
is, he can't cross back over to the land of the living as a single
body/spirit. 

Valky:
I do think it is possible that he is trapped there in a sense. Still
able to live, but not able to return. Though I agree the single
body/spirit explanation is a stretch.

bboymn:
So, the solution is for Sirius to touch Voldemort. <snip>by moving to
Sirius's body with no 'in-between' time, he remains safe. With Harry
in control and his own body protected,
Harry marches Sirius's body out from behind the Veil. <snip> Although,
it is possible to speculate that Sirius's body will drop dead when
Harry exists .... a detail .... I can live with.

Valky:
I, too, think whether Sirius lives or dies it will be a great moment
either way. OTOH I think you also hit the nail on the head with the
word *control* here. I see this as the crux of the matter because I
think it will be this that Harry will retain when he goes through the
veil, unbodily, while others who go through bodily lose it. Because
Harry's 'will' survives as he passes through the veil unbodily, he
will have the power to return and take Sirius with him.

In a way isn't this foreshadowed by Harry dragging Cedric back via the
Portkey in GOF?

bboymn:
Now to the real problem. This is all a great potential ending for the
story. The question is will/has JKR thought of it? 

Valky:
Well I really hope so. Its my favourite so far. This and no less than
this JKR please! <g>

 
> Carol responds:
> But where does the locked room come in? Surely it should fit into 
> the picture somewhere? And what about Snape, who is supposed to have 
> a crucial role to play in Book 7?
> 


Valky:
I don't know how we could fit the room of Love into this hypothesis
and I really don't think we should try too hard. It will probably come
into play earlier in the book. FWIW, if you at all buy the Labours of
Hercules theory, before Hercules goes to the Underworld he visits
Eleusis to be initiated in the lesser mysteries in preparation for his
journey. The lesser mysteries were a ritual in honour of Persephone
and there is less known about the lesser mysteries than there is about
the greater mysteries. However we do know the greater mysteries are in
honour of Demeter who also travelled to the underworld and that they
are sometimes interpreted as the ritual of going through the veil of
death.

Valky
Working on a response to Carol's post about how possession works, but
my theory is based on calculus and I know how much Carol loves that! <g>  










From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 14:07:24 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Riddle House
In-Reply-To: <dkekgd+clqp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051104140724.39531.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142478

Luckdragon wrote:
"Does Dumbledore own the riddle house? I know there were past discussions about the possibility of Lucius Malfoy possibly owning the house, but upon rereading GOF, I noted that the new owner continued to pay Frank Bryce to do the gardening even into his old age, at which point weeds were growing up everywhere."

 

 
CH3ed:

Don't know, mate. Lucius could have kept the place for dark objects stash, perhaps (but then when Arthur Weasley was giving his troubles in CoS he was dumping stuff off at Knockturn Alley)? I don't know how estate laws in Britain work. It seems the Muggles would think that the last of the Riddles died in that mysterious triple deaths (I don't think LV's orphanage knew of the Riddles or they would have sent him there, ay?). What happens to your things in England if you die without any heir or family member left? Rich people here in the States usually have a will and a family lawyer to execute it. Any inputs from our English members?


		






From littleleah at handbag.com  Fri Nov  4 17:04:45 2005
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:04:45 -0000
Subject: Riddle House
In-Reply-To: <20051104140724.39531.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkg4bd+e7rv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142479

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M. Thitathan" <h2so3f at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Luckdragon wrote:
> "Does Dumbledore own the riddle house? I know there were past 
discussions about the possibility of Lucius Malfoy possibly owning 
the house, but upon rereading GOF, I noted that the new owner 
continued to pay Frank Bryce to do the gardening even into his old 
age, at which point weeds were growing up everywhere."
> 
> 
>  
> CH3ed:
> 
> Don't know, mate. Lucius could have kept the place for dark 
>objects stash, perhaps (but then when Arthur Weasley was giving his 
>troubles in CoS he was dumping stuff off at Knockturn Alley)? I 
>don't know how estate laws in Britain work. It seems the Muggles 
>would think that the last of the Riddles died in that mysterious 
>triple deaths (I don't think LV's orphanage knew of the Riddles or 
>they would have sent him there, ay?). What happens to your things 
>in England if you die without any heir or family member left? Rich 
>people here in the States usually have a will and a family lawyer 
>to execute it. Any inputs from our English members?


We don't know if any of the Riddles left wills, but I would assume 
not. If they did, the property would have passed according to wills, 
but with the complication that it is not clear who died first. When 
a married appear to have died at the same time, English law presumes 
that the elder of them dies first.  It would be possible therefore 
that Riddle Snr's property would have passed to his wife, and then 
on the terms of her will to whoever she left the money to. If this 
was Tom Jnr then I think (but am not entirely sure) it would go to 
whoever he had designated in his will.

If there were no wills, then the property would have passed in much 
the same way, and legitimate children of Tom Riddle, ie Voldemort, 
would inherit under intestacy provisions.  Voldemort would have to 
be traced though, and advertisements placed in various newspapers to 
try and find the heirs.  If Voldemort could prove his descent from 
the Riddles, then he would get the Riddle house when he came of age 
(21 in those days).

If he wasn't traced or chose not to be traced, and no other Riddle 
relatives came forward, then the property would go to the Crown. The 
Crown's agents  would then sell or, if unable to sell, let out the 
property.  From the way the Riddle house is described in the first 
chapter of GOF, I see it as being sold shortly after the Riddles' 
death, and thereafter frequently changing owners. I don't see 
Voldemort ever using the house, as GOF says "...Frank did not 
leave.  He stayed to tend the garden for the next family who lived 
in the Riddle House". It is clear that the new owners, and their 
successors found the house disturbing, which would seem to suggest 
they were not DEs looking after the house for Voldemort or Lucius or 
whoever.  It also seems that the house was not let out, because GOF 
refers to each 'new owner' of the house (as opposed to tenant). 

I agree with CH3ed that DD may well have bought the house while 
carrying out his investigations into Voldemort's past.  He is a 
likely person to have continued to pay Frank, though if this is the 
case, he was not keeping much of an eye on it.

Leah       

    








From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 14:32:20 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkffo9+8eh9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051104143220.96453.qmail@web34910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142480


CH3ed:
I'm just wondering if LV's body is the same as other people's naturally born one now since it was magically wrought from that glittering potion that Wormtail brewed, Riddle Sr.'s bone dust, and some of Harry's blood. In that scene at the fountain in OotP it seems that LV disappeared (neither Harry nor DD could see where LV went) for a few seconds (enough time for DD to get alarmed and told Harry to stay put) before Harry felt the possession. So I think that sounds like there was no LV body standing around somewhere while Harry was being possessed.

 

Besides, it appears that LV didn't (and still doesn't) know that DD was on to his horcruxes, so LV thought that DD didn't know that even if he destroyed LV's body again LV still wouldn't die but would just become a bodiless soul(or what's left of it) that LV was after GH. Hence, LV tried to get DD to sacrify Harry in trying to kill LV.  

CH3ed






From zehms at aol.com  Fri Nov  4 14:53:36 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:53:36 EST
Subject: War - Taking the School and Students
Message-ID: <c.50d0d5fc.309ccff0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142481

I agree that LV would take the school while the students are present, not in 
the Summer.

JKR has too much to concentrate on in the plot early on.

JKR has stated that a character will use magic late in life, I am of the 
opinion that this person will be Petunia.  I expect to see something unusual 
happen on Privet Drive in the opening chapters of Book 7.  I think Harry will learn 
something from Petunia.

I also think there is a possibility that Harry could discover a horcrux at 
Bill and Fluer's wedding.  I have a suspicion about AUnt Muriel's goblin made 
antique tiara.  But even if that suspicion is unfounded, I think that a horcrux 
will be discovered before Hogwarts term begins.

The most important event for Harry is going to Godric's Hollow.  Perhaps a 
horcrux will be discovered there, regardless, JKR has stated that something 
REALLY important about Lily will be discovered in Book 7, I imagine that here is 
where Harry learns something valuable about his parents, his Mum in particular.

These events need to unfold, then I do think an offensive against Hogwarts 
will begin.

JKR says we will see the mirrors SIrius and James previously used again, 
perhaps this would be a way for HRH to communicate with students at Hogwarts.

Szehms





From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Fri Nov  4 17:11:51 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:11:51 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Will
In-Reply-To: <dkeku7+j7sn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkg4on+crce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142482

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bee chase" <luckdragon64 at y...>
wrote:
>
> Luckdragon:
> I'm sure we will see something of Aberforth in book 7, either as a 
> member of the OOTP or in regards to DD's estate. Does anyone dare to 
> guess what DD may leave Harry, if anything, in his will. Maybe a 
> privately owned secret time turner, DD's pensieve, Fawkes, another 
> magic diary allowing Harry access to DD's memories/knowledge?
>

 This is a really good line of thinking. I really do believe that the
trio will come across another time turner. The main reason I believe
this is that Rowling made such a point of telling us that there were
no more timeturners. In the 6th book when Hagrid is upset with the
trio for  not taking his class, he says they couldnt have fit it all
in even with time turners. Hermione interupts him and serves her
"walking encyclopedia" function by reminding us all the all the time
turners were destroyed in the ministry fiasco. I think that either
Dumbledore or McGonagall will have one. 


truthbeauty1





From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Fri Nov  4 17:05:57 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:05:57 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <63378ee70511031338o26b1439ak72b1b5325d7e2764@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dkg4dl+8t6b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142483

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, <lady.indigo at g...> wrote:


 
> I don't really post on here anymore, though I really should, but
I've read
> that theory before and I'm surprised that 'red' made his mind go to
Hagrid.
> It makes me think of the Weasleys much more easily. Red hair.



 That is a really good point. However, I believe that the string of
deaths happen to those whose names represent the color, not so much
those characters whose appearance represents the color. For example,
the white stage would have been much better served by Luna Lovegood or
Fleur  Delacor if appearance were the deciding factor. I believe that
the Weasleys may serve a very important purpose in the red stage,
however, I believe that Hagrids name is what would fullfil this theme. 


truthbeauty1





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 18:33:03 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:33:03 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkffo9+8eh9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkg9gv+ac8j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142484

Ceridwen wrote:
> While non-corporeal possession leaves too many unanswered questions
(such as the problem of what Voldemort did with his body while he was
in Harry, which is a decent-sized problem), I still have to disagree.
><snip>
> Culturally, we know that possession is by spirit/soul entities.  The
Exorcist, stories in the Bible, and other things.  I am not aware of a
physical posession that doesn't involve some parody of a pregnancy
(Alien).  We've seen three examples I can think of where someone is
possessed: TR's possession of Ginny in CoS; Voldemort's (and
subsequently Harry's) possession of Nagini in OotP (don't you feel 
sorry for the snake, having two people piggy-backing in her brain?); 
Harry at the MoM at the end of OotP.  And in none of those cases does
JKR think to inform us that, cultural expectations aside, the
possession is physical.
> 
> I doubt if she even thought about what LV's body was doing while he 
> was possessing Harry.  She naturally had Dumbledore focus on Harry, 
> since his judgement where Harry is concerned, is skewed by 
> affection.  Which Dumbledore explains later, though he doesn't 
> mention the possession scene as one of his failings that I recall.  I 
> think she's relying on our cultural perceptions to explain 
> possession, since it's her culture as well.  Any plot hole arising 
> from it, like the whole What Was LV Doing While He Possessed Harry 
> thing, is just that, a plot hole JKR didn't fill up.
> 
> That's why I can't buy possession by the body of the possessor.  
> There's nothing to back it up in our culture, and there's no 
> explanation for something she's invented outside of our cultural 
> experiences. <snip>

Carol responds:
I think our culture does support the idea of physical as well as
mental possession, that is, possession by an embodied rather than a
disembodied spirit or demon. And Voldemort, being somewhat less (or
other) than human now, can be thought of in those terms.

Possession, I think you'll agree, is usually depicted (whether in the
Bible, in legend, or in film) as a spirit entering the body of a
living person. You seem to be thinking of a spirit as being a bodiless
thing like a soul, but here's one of several definitions from
Merriam-Webster: "a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human
being." Note "being."

The Spirits that visit Scrooge on Christmas Eve (not counting Marley,
who is explicitly a ghost) have bodies and Scrooge can touch them. And
consider the original concept of a daemon, a supernatural being
intermediate between gods and men, which evolved into our concept of a
demon (think demonic possession--doesn't the demon itself enter the
possessed person without leaving its body behind)?

I think the reason that Harry felt physical pain in the DoM is that
Voldemort was possessing him physically as well as mentally. (But I
don't think that Harry was possessing Nagini. He was only channeling
Voldemort/Nagini's thoughts and feelings, not in any way controlling
them.)

Harry, of course, is not a demon/daemon, but if my theory is correct,
he will have acquired Voldemort's power of possession, the ability to
enter and control another person, through the transfer of powers at
Godric's Hollow. (As I've explained elsewhere, this is different from
sharing a soul with LV and does not require Harry to be a Horcrux.)

As for JKR not hinting earlier that possession can be physical, what
about the man with two faces? Quirrell had to wear a turban to hide
the face of Voldemort sticking out the back of his head.

Carol, who doesn't think that JKR would overlook anything as
inconvenient as the possessor's abandoned body lying around vulnerable
to attack







From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 18:35:17 2005
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkfmlb+po9m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051104183517.81019.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142485

-- cubfanbudwoman <susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Magda:
> 
>> I guess I'm just a mean rotten person because my response to this
>> is...so what?  Molly cares for and loves Harry too, and she's
>> certainly not above criticism because of it.  
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> I can't quite believe I'm responding, but since your comments were 
> written as a response to a portion of a post of mine, I feel a bit
> of an obligation to do so.  First off, can you point me to where I
> said 
> that Sirius should be "above criticism" because he loved Harry?  In
> the post from which the above quote came, I agreed with Carol in a 
> couple of spots re: things Sirius did which were NOT smart or
> helpful.

Well, for that matter, can you point to where _I_ said that _you_
said that Sirius should be "above criticism" because he loved Harry? 


The "he loved his godson" claim obscures an objective look at what is
a majorly conflicted character, someone second only to Snape in the
personal angst department, whose efforts to develop over the course
of OOTP were doomed by circumstances outside of his control and whose
presence was hampering Harry's personal development as well.

There's been lots of speculation about why JKR killed Sirius off. 
Many readers can't believe she was so heartless as to remove him just
when Harry seemed to need him most.  I think it's because Harry has
to shuck off the past and assume his destiny and he can't do that
because he had to watch himself around Sirius.  Loving or not, Sirius
cramped Harry.  And Sirius knew it.

> Siriusly Snapey Susan, who thinks sarcasm really isn't a very
> helpful thing many times.

Magda (who thinks sarcasm can be a very effective way of emphasizing
something)



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  4 17:41:23 2005
From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:41:23 -0000
Subject: Harrycrux again (was: Why can't Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <dkbfqa+idod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkg6g3+rtdu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142486

expectopatronnie: 
Neri, I liked some of your explenations, although I'm not altogerher 
sure I'm convinced. But, even if I do go along with you, could you 
explain why *Harry* is the Horcrux, and not solely his scar? Most of 
your argument would still work, but Harry would not have to die, 
only to have his scar removed.

Also, I really don't think the 'monster' or 'creature'words 
concerning Harry's crush to Ginny are of any relevence here. We all 
have monsters and creatures like that inside us (I hope you do 
too!), and none of us are HX of LV!

> Neri:
> This choice of words to describe Harry's crush is slightly 
disturbing,

expectopatronnie: 
JK used the word creature, a lot of other times too. 

Neri:  
> 10. Unintentional Hx: I agree that it wouldn't be very logical for
> Voldy to make Harry a Hx and immediately trying to kill him. As a
> whole, it appears Voldy isn't aware at all that Harry is his Hx. 
But I
> see a very good scenario for unintentional Hx: when he went to GH,
> Voldy was planning to use Harry's murder to rip his soul, and turn
> *Lily* into his Hx. This is why he tried to spare her, which JKR
> recently confirmed. 

expectopatronnie: 
Did she really? Like the rest of us, I've been wondering why LV told 
Lily to step aside, for ages now. Can you give us the link to this 
confirmation? 

E., letting the monster inside her purr with wonder.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 18:43:24 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:43:24 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <20051104183517.81019.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkga4c+ep8h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142487

Magda:
<SNIP>
> The "he loved his godson" claim obscures an objective look at what 
is
> a majorly conflicted character, someone second only to Snape in the
> personal angst department, whose efforts to develop over the course
> of OOTP were doomed by circumstances outside of his control and 
whose
> presence was hampering Harry's personal development as well.
<SNIP>



Alla:

I guess I find it impossible to ignore " he loved his godson" idea. I 
just don't get how in the series where author keeps emphasizing that 
Love is a major power, major theme, Sirius' love of his godson could 
obscure anything. Sirius had many flaws? Sure he did, but I am just 
thinking that if we will forget about " he loved his godson", we will 
miss something very important thematically. I don't see how one is 
mutually exclusive of another.

JMO,

Alla












From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 19:14:04 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:14:04 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <dkg4dl+8t6b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgbts+iut2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142488

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" <rh64643 at a...> 
wrote:
>  That is a really good point. However, I believe that the string of
> deaths happen to those whose names represent the color, not so much
> those characters whose appearance represents the color. For example,
> the white stage would have been much better served by Luna Lovegood or
> Fleur  Delacor if appearance were the deciding factor. I believe that
> the Weasleys may serve a very important purpose in the red stage,
> however, I believe that Hagrids name is what would fullfil this 
theme. 
> 

While the names certainly follow a pattern, so do the physical 
attributes. Black=Sirius Black. It is his name, yes. But, he also has 
the animagus form of a large black dog, and he has dark eyes/hair. I'd 
say he's a good fit base don appearance. And white=DD. He's got white 
hair and a white beard, with blue eyes. All light...I don't see how 
either Fleur or Luna are better fits.







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 19:52:21 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:52:21 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <20051104001150.75297.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkge5l+e321@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142489

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich 
<mgrantwich at y...> wrote:

> Ah, yes, Sirius cares so much for Harry.  He LOVES him SO much.  
> God, how lucky Harry is to have such a wonderful godfather!  Makes 
> me break down in sniffles, it really does.  (Excuse me while I find 
> a Kleenex...)
> 
> I guess I'm just a mean rotten person because my response to this
> is...so what?  Molly cares for and loves Harry too, and she's
> certainly not above criticism because of it.  

Silly me, I thought I'd been reading a story where the power of love 
was absolutely front and center, with mystical powers that no other 
form of magic seems to have and overwhelming thematic importance.

So, here's a tangential question that's actually interesting to me, 
at least:

What happens when an author patently thinks something is both worth 
of page time and (even worse) thematically important, but at least 
some of the audience doesn't care about it or doesn't want to accept 
it as such?  Rowling has painted a text picture that at least some of 
us have picked up on that exalts the loving relationship there, and 
has in interviews re-emphasized its importance and all of that.  I 
suppose you *can* read the Sirius/Harry relationship 
with 'objectivity' in mind, although choosing to ignore the love 
aspect of it under the guise of objectivity is only being selective.

But it strikes me that to give it such short shrift may well make it 
hard to read the story coherently in the long run.  Sure, we like to 
talk about how JKR has Edge and the story is complex and morally 
murky, but there's a vein of sentimentality, or at least a grand 
exaltation of love, lurking behind things.  She wants us to take 
things as sincere that we don't necessarily *want* to, and I include 
myself the reader in that.  Harry/Ginny is one of them.  Harry's 
fundamental loyalty to Dumbledore is another.

I'll eat the full measure of crow be I wrong, but who doesn't by now 
suspect that it's going to come down to those sorts of things rather 
than some wands blazing magical skillz showdown, or last minute 
revelations of seekrit plots and agents?  Lily didn't do any special 
magic or rituals or any of that to save baby Harry's life; pure 
emotion, and a positive one at that.

It's not a good series to read cynically if you don't want to be 
disappointed in the end, I think.

-Nora runs off out into the glorious sunshine to administer exams 
(fairly and with no badgering of students as they write, of course)







From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  4 20:12:33 2005
From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:12:33 -0000
Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3??
In-Reply-To: <dk6laq+90o1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgfbh+eju8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142490

Hi Christina, I'm also in delay... (and very sorry that I'm not able 
to follow all the messages). 


>
> Christina:
> 
> I just wanted to say that I've never heard Sirius!lives defended in
> that way...but was that DE ever able to return to normal?  I mean, 
if
> the Death Eater could never rectify time's influence, then nobody
> could ever rectify death's influence on Sirius either.
 
Expectopatronnie:

I really have no idea what happend to the bird or the DE's head. 
Also I would like to point out that DD believes Sirius to be out of 
reach, so I don't think anybody has ever been saved from the death 
substance before. OTOH, nobody broke from Azkaban before Sirius did, 
right ? ;)

> Christina:
> 
> You're absolutely right about wizards being tough to kill
[snip]
> However, a wizard's ability to overcome injury depends on their 
> having somebody around to fix it. 
[snip]
> We have several examples of ways in which a wizard can be killed 
> without Avada Kedavra.
<snip of the examples which could be read UPTHREAD>

Expectopatronnie:

Well, to summarize, you have 2 arguments here: 
1. Non-magic injuries or mild-magic injuries could kill a wizard if 
no magic help is in the vicinity.

2. Other Powerfull *Dark* Magic can kill, besides the AK 
(Sectumsempra, poison (both on Ron's and Katie's incidents), etc.). 

Argument 2 actually fits into what I previously argued, (i.e. - only 
strong magic can kill wizards, and you're probable right in your 1st 
argument, I'll give you that. Also when previously I wrote: 

Christina:
> > I believe the most popular murder spell is AK, but perhaps Benjy 
> > Fenwick was killed by a S(maybe Snape did that?)or his body 
> > might have been abused post-mortem (like in some terrorist
> > attacks).

Expectopatronnie:
I meant the 'S' to be Sectumsmpra (which I couln't recall the exact 
name at the time, and forgot to fill it in later). Anyway, I still 
believe that the most popular murder spell is AK (when you intend to 
kill). To conclude: all we can really say from cannon is that there 
were more AK's made by DE's other than LV, but I can't really know 
how many, by whom and how popular this spell is. 

It does raise the question of the unforgivable curses: Why isn't 
killing unforgivable, no matter how it's done? Does killing by 
Sectumsempra divide the soul? Does casting an unsuccessfull spell 
(AK or other)?

> Christina:
> 
> Ah, OK, I did misunderstand you.  Thanks for clarifying.  I hear 
> your point, but at the same time, Harry knows that the only thing 
> keeping him and his friends alive is the prophecy.  Even if a 
> Death Eater killed one of the kids, there's no way Harry would 
> smash the prophecy.
 
Expectopatronnie:
Even so, he clearly does set the prophecy-crashing ultimatum when 
the DE close on *one* of his friend. On this point the DE understand 
they can't risk Harry's (short-tempered) reaction to the death of 
one friend, and they let go of Ginny. 
 
> Christina:
> 
> They still have the prophecy to lose...
[snip]
> And although I do think that the
> flashes of green light were AK spells, we can't really prove it. 
> There must be other spells that are green, and we don't hear a 
> rush of
> air like we have most of the other times one has been cast.

Expectopatronnie: 
I also tend to think the green lights were not AK's and that the DE 
didn't use AK at the battle in the DoM. Again, your first point (in 
which you are of course correct) is the reason: they had the 
prophecy to loose! 
The argument I made here is that if, by any chance the green lights 
have been Ak, it was obviously made by a DE who thought they had 
nothing to loose, and needed to escape at whatever price.  

> Christina:
> 
> I think you're right about every AK damaging the soul, making each
> person less and less human, which is basically what made me come to
> the conclusion that it must be the Horcrux-making that affected
> Voldemort so much.  
> We see that he delegates a lot of his killings to
> the Death Eaters- it is implied that only "special" people are 
> killed by Voldemort personally.  

Expectopatronnie comments: 
I thought you previously said that AK were very rare and sort of 
suggested only VM had done them... Or do you think the other 
killings were not AK style?

On a finer note, we really can't say what makes LV so non-human 
looking. Your argument on his looks seems to suggest that it is not 
the AK alone. I do believe VM (esp. in younger days)committed many 
more AK than his followers. I really don't think it can be the 
Horcrux damaging the soul. After all, don't you think that murder is 
a much more terrible (==soul damaging) crime, than encasing something 
of yours (whatever it may be), for later use? 
 
>Christina: 

> The "killing one's own father" thing is *very* interesting.  We've
> heard about the powerful magic that resides in blood (Lily's 
> sacrifice and Harry's protected status at the Dursley's).
>   Maybe destroying one's own blood gives kind of the opposite
>  affect?  Perhaps killing a blood relative somehow "taints" or 
> curses one's life, liking killing a
> Unicorn and drinking it's blood does?  It doesn't account for a
> gradual change in LV's appearance 

Expectopatronnie:

Well, why not consider it? My "father's law" here suggests that 
in order to become this inhuman, you must kill your own blood-
relative, one that you're supposed to love and obey (as a child - 
the internalization of the father figure makes you able to live in 
society). VM killed his father, unlike most of his DE who did AK's 
at strangers (excluding for sure Crouch Jr., who's looks are only 
mentioned as having an insane smile, and Bella, who IMO did not 
intend to kill via AK Sirius, so it doesn't hold for her). I believe 
that while any killing may rip your soul (soul pieces evaporating or 
not), only killing one's own parent makes you inhuman. 
Malfoy,Macnair, Bella etc. may be rotten people, who's soul is 
ripped, but they are still part of the human society, still human in 
essence. 

> Christina:
> 
> I think that while an AK might not necessarily weaken your powers 
> per se, it does do spiritual and perhaps mental damage as well. 
>  I think that the making of the Horcruxes enhances this damage.
>   When we look at the young Tom Riddle, he is charming, 
> charismatic, and very mindful
> of his actions and general demeanor.  In the present time of the
> books, he seems a touch deranged.  

expectopatronnie:

This fits in with the 'father's law' theory, as well as your Horcrux 
one. 

> Christina:
> I find myself running into a few problems in assuming that 
> anything can be a Horcrux.  What if you try and make a ham 
> sandwich into a Horcrux? Where would the
> person's soul actually be- in the ham, the bread, or the mustard?  
> Or perhaps spread evenly throughout?  What if somebody *ate* the
> sandwich.   

Expectopatronnie:

Really cool idea, Christina! And I like your comparing of the Diary 
to the Ring. Wow, I have really no idea how Hx work! I wonder if JK 
does?

expectopatronnie, in a heretic mood...










From lady.indigo at gmail.com  Fri Nov  4 20:49:47 2005
From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:49:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <dkgbts+iut2@eGroups.com>
References: <dkg4dl+8t6b@eGroups.com> <dkgbts+iut2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <63378ee70511041249x165549e1g8a7567d23f5cea25@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142491

On 11/4/05, zgirnius <zgirnius at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" <rh64643 at a...>
> wrote:
> > That is a really good point. However, I believe that the string of
> > deaths happen to those whose names represent the color, not so much
> > those characters whose appearance represents the color. For example,
> > the white stage would have been much better served by Luna Lovegood or
> > Fleur Delacor if appearance were the deciding factor. I believe that
> > the Weasleys may serve a very important purpose in the red stage,
> > however, I believe that Hagrids name is what would fullfil this
> theme.
> >
>
> While the names certainly follow a pattern, so do the physical
> attributes. Black=Sirius Black. It is his name, yes. But, he also has
> the animagus form of a large black dog, and he has dark eyes/hair. I'd
> say he's a good fit base don appearance. And white=DD. He's got white
> hair and a white beard, with blue eyes. All light...I don't see how
> either Fleur or Luna are better fits.
>
>
Exactly. Plus...well, I can concieve of Hagrid dying, but no way he's the
'big' death. He was barely even in book 6, and while he's a sweetheart he's
just not IMPORTANT. Meanwhile Ron's death, IMO, has been foreshadowed from
the chess game in Book 1 and sacrificing his life for the cause would really
show his coming into maturity.

- Lady Indigo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  4 21:24:25 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:24:25 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkg9gv+ac8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgji9+f1p9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142492

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
>
> Ceridwen wrote:
> > While non-corporeal possession leaves too many unanswered 
questions
> (such as the problem of what Voldemort did with his body while he 
was
> in Harry, which is a decent-sized problem), I still have to 
disagree.
> ><snip>
> > Culturally, we know that possession is by spirit/soul entities.  
The
> Exorcist, stories in the Bible, and other things.  I am not aware 
of a
> physical posession that doesn't involve some parody of a pregnancy
> (Alien).  We've seen three examples I can think of where someone is
> possessed: TR's possession of Ginny in CoS; Voldemort's (and
> subsequently Harry's) possession of Nagini in OotP (don't you feel 
> sorry for the snake, having two people piggy-backing in her 
brain?); 
> Harry at the MoM at the end of OotP.  And in none of those cases 
does
> JKR think to inform us that, cultural expectations aside, the
> possession is physical.
> > 
> > I doubt if she even thought about what LV's body was doing while 
he 
> > was possessing Harry.  She naturally had Dumbledore focus on 
Harry, 
> > since his judgement where Harry is concerned, is skewed by 
> > affection.  Which Dumbledore explains later, though he doesn't 
> > mention the possession scene as one of his failings that I 
recall.  I 
> > think she's relying on our cultural perceptions to explain 
> > possession, since it's her culture as well.  Any plot hole 
arising 
> > from it, like the whole What Was LV Doing While He Possessed 
Harry 
> > thing, is just that, a plot hole JKR didn't fill up.
> > 
> > That's why I can't buy possession by the body of the possessor.  
> > There's nothing to back it up in our culture, and there's no 
> > explanation for something she's invented outside of our cultural 
> > experiences. <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> Possession, I think you'll agree, is usually depicted (whether in 
the
> Bible, in legend, or in film) as a spirit entering the body of a
> living person. 

Ceridwen:
Sounds about right.

> You seem to be thinking of a spirit as being a bodiless
> thing like a soul, but here's one of several definitions from
> Merriam-Webster: "a malevolent being that enters and possesses a 
human
> being." Note "being."

Ceridwen:
Presence of two beings duly noted.

Since it's the battle of the dictionaries, I suppose we could say 
we're about to tackle the definition of 'is'.  Since 'being' is a 
state, and the first thing dictionary.com does when fed the 
word 'being' is to define it as "First and third person singular past 
indicative was..."  Two paragraphs, ten definitions, and two longish 
notes.  For such a little word!  Maybe we should leave the definition 
of 'is' to a more boring place.

But, moving on past the verb forms of being, we finally reach the 
thing.  The American Heritage dictionary in part defines 'being' 
as 'The state or quality of having existence'.  No body necessarily.  
Just existence.

WorldNet 2.0 gets more esoteric: "The state or fact of existing..." 
including laws and points of view, and "a living thing that has (or 
can develop) the ability to act or function independently."

> 
> The Spirits that visit Scrooge on Christmas Eve (not counting 
Marley,
> who is explicitly a ghost) have bodies and Scrooge can touch them.


Ceridwen:
But, they can't be seen.  They seem to inhabit a place like the one 
Harry occupies in the Pensieve - they can see and hear, but not 
ordinarily interact with the people they're observing.  They can't 
change the action, they can't deliver messages.  These beings in A 
Christmas Carol (one of my favorite books, btw) are spirits, as, 
apparently, is Scrooge while he is with them.  They can fly, they can 
stay warm in thin clothes even in the snow.  They can change 
locations at will.  Scrooge has some sort of special dispensation 
which is supposed to change his life that night, so he is privileged 
to see, hear and touch the spirits, as well as operate as if he was 
one of them.

> And
> consider the original concept of a daemon, a supernatural being
> intermediate between gods and men, which evolved into our concept 
of a
> demon (think demonic possession--doesn't the demon itself enter the
> possessed person without leaving its body behind)?


Ceridwen:
The demon has no body.  It's a spirit being, like God and the 
angels.  God walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of 
Eden, but he was spirit, not flesh.  A distinction is drawn in the 
Bible.  And, God couldn't become Man, a physical birth had to be 
accomplished in order for the Divine to physically interact with 
Mankind.  Ordinarily, we can't see, touch, or hear God, angels or 
demons.

Carol:
> I think the reason that Harry felt physical pain in the DoM is that
> Voldemort was possessing him physically as well as mentally. (But I
> don't think that Harry was possessing Nagini. He was only channeling
> Voldemort/Nagini's thoughts and feelings, not in any way controlling
> them.)

Ceridwen:
Yeah, I was trying for some levity.  I didn't want Steve to think I 
was 'yelling' at him.  Still, Harry's along for the ride, or getting 
a camera's eye view of what LV's seeing.

Carol:
> Harry, of course, is not a demon/daemon, but if my theory is 
correct,
> he will have acquired Voldemort's power of possession, the ability 
to
> enter and control another person, through the transfer of powers at
> Godric's Hollow. (As I've explained elsewhere, this is different 
from
> sharing a soul with LV and does not require Harry to be a Horcrux.)

Ceridwen:
I love the possession theory.  IMO, it fits in all sorts of ways.  
The discussion now is about fine-tuning it, apparently.  So, on the 
agreement side, we can speculate that it's a power transfered to 
Harry by LV at GH; it leaves Harry free to use his own will; it 
covers why Harry didn't die an unnaturally early death like the hosts 
Vapor!Mort occupies; it can play a part in the final battle without 
forcing Harry to duel LV or to use an Unforgiveable.  Any more? 
> 
> As for JKR not hinting earlier that possession can be physical, what
> about the man with two faces? Quirrell had to wear a turban to hide
> the face of Voldemort sticking out the back of his head.

Ceridwen:
LV had no body then.  LV was nothing but the remnants of his soul 
(&spirit?) left to him after GH.  The first body we see is the ugly 
fetus in GoF.  His essence (one of the definitions of 'being') was 
occupying Quirrel's body like a cheap motel.  And, he trashed the 
place before he left.

If LV was occupying Quirrel as body and soul, not just as essence, 
then what happened to the LV body after Quirrel's demise?  Why 
couldn't he be captured?  He would have been at least as vulnerable 
as Fetus!Mort, probably even worse off.  If he had a body, he could 
have been destroyed then, before he grew stronger.  But if he was 
merely vapor once Quirrel was dead, if his soul part was released 
from Quirrel's body, then it would have been both invisible, and 
incapable of being captured.

In the MoM, it seems Voldemort was rescuing Bellatrix and 
Disapparating either during or immediately after the possession 
scene.  While reading it, I thought LV couldn't Disapparate inside 
the MoM, though he did disappear from the veil of water.  Immediately 
after that, Harry is possessed (he sees a creature with red eyes - he 
doesn't identify it as LV - wrapped around him and using his mouth, 
though I did, and still do, take that more as a hallucination), is 
used to taunt DD into killing Harry and the 'creature', then the 
place is swarming with Ministry officials and Williamson tells Fudge 
that LV was there, rescued a woman, and Disapparated.  So, it's 
possible for LV to be out of the MoM and still possessing Harry via 
his non-corporeal essence.

(OT, just re-read the scene in the graveyard, where LV is 
congratulating himself.  One or more of his experiments?  Could equal 
one or more of his horcruxes.  He wouldn't know they worked, unless 
they were tested, and they were.  Though, how many of them actually 
worked?  More than one, or he would have been gone in CoS when Harry 
destroyed the diary.  Could this mean that one or more of the 
remaining horcruxes are duds?  And, what is this smelling thing LV 
does when the DEs show up?  He smells guilt?  Could Harry also have 
inherited that sort of power?  Or is it the result of the new body?)

Ceridwen, who does like the idea of possession as one of the traits 
LV passed along to Harry at GH, and sees the devil, or at least feels 
his presence, in the details.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 21:42:16 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:42:16 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkcl84+66ej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgkjo+r7dg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142493

> >>Krista (wondering what music Jogging!Snape has on his iPod)

Betsy Hp:
Since I love to overthink our Professor Snape, I've been giving this 
*way* too much thought <g>.  My flippant response was 
Weezer's "Beverly Hills" ('cause, heh).  And then there's Pink 
Floyd's "The Wall" ('cause he'd so get and love the irony).  

But then I realized that Snape would have been in his late teens, 
early twenties (per the Lexicon which puts his birth year at '59 
or '60) in the late 70's and early 80's.  So he'd be a disaffected 
youth with working class roots (possibly/probably) and some major 
anger issues at the birth of punk.  Snape and punk?  Oh hells yeah!  
So add in some Velvet Underground, Ramones, Patti Smith, the Clash, 
Sex Pistols, etc.  (Though I do question the Sex Pistols.  Snape may 
have felt them a bit more show than substance.  Someone with a 
better grasp of that particular era than I can make the call. <g>) 

As a total guilty pleasure that he'd cheerfully murder anyone who 
found out about it -- ABBA.  I can picture either Lily or Narcissa 
being big ABBA fans while at Hogwarts, so which ever POP floats your 
boat, Snape has an emotional attachment to ABBA that he just can't 
shake.

Throw in some Rachmaninov, Debussy, Mahler and Beethovan.  Add a bit 
of Mozart (Dumbledore's influence) and I think we've got a good 
start.  (I considered Wagner, for obvious reasons, but I'm not sure 
Snape would honestly go for it.)

[This is a total aside, but thinking of Snape as the weird kid from 
a not so great neighborhood, I'm betting he was a scrapper.  I'll 
bet he was used to fighting unfair odds and knew how to fight dirty 
(it'd match his school-boy vocabulary, anyway).  So I'm betting the 
first time he and James and Sirius got into it they had a bit of a 
shock. heh.]

Betsy Hp (over-thinking things since birth - can I blame my 
parents?) 






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Fri Nov  4 21:17:53 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:17:53 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <20051103230338.57847.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkgj61+99rq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142494

> Magda wrote:
(snip)
> Well, maybe the answer is: there really wasn't any task that Sirius
> was qualified to perform.  
> 
> Granted he's good in a fight (although being the only one killed in
> the Battle at the MoM might not look that way), but how many times
> would the Order get into a street fight?  It certainly wasn't their
> strategy in OOTP.
> 
> Sirius' personal tragedy was that he was irrelevant to the fight 
the
> Order was currently waging and he was increasingly irrelevant to
> Harry, who had actually outgrown him without realizing it.  
> (Although I think Sirius did realize it and tried to adjust his 
behaviour
> accordingly.)  

(edited)
> 
> I guess I really don't see why members of the Order should have
> adjusted their busy lives to make a grown man feel good about 
> himself when everyone knew the dangers out there and the 
> importance of secrecy.  So he was bored.  There are worse things 
> than being bored. 
> 
		
Lucianam:

Yes, there are worse things than being bored, like being depressed 
and feeling useless. 

Of course you have addressed the 'useless' part, and I agree in 
part. Sirius wasn't doing anything else for the Order besides 
providing them a HQ, but that was something. From Sirius's own words 
we know he didn't think it was enough (and neither did Snape, it 
seemed).

I don't think Harry had outgrown Sirius though, it seems he was a 
reference to Harry when he had trouble with James's behavior in the 
pensieve. Lupin was there too, but Harry didn't know that when he 
took that risk in Umbridge's office just to talk to Sirius. 

I guess JKR knew she was going to give Sirius the axe, so she had to 
justify herself - that being HUGELY my own perception, of course. 

Sirius had a very interesting plotline of his own in PoA, but I 
think JKR had trouble to insert him in GoF's plot. What does he do 
in GoF? Not much besides being a source of info on Death Eaters. 
Anyone could have done that! 

Sherry wrote:
(snipped)
> I've
> always found his presence in Dumbledore's office after the 
> graveyard one of
> the most moving scenes in the series. Harry draws comfort and 
> strength from
> his presence. Harry needed him, and no matter what the eventual
> consequences, it was the right thing to do at the time. 

I think that was Sirius's real role in GoF, and for plot reasons I 
suppose JKR could've cut his other scenes in GoF but this one and 
the one with Snape in Chapter The Second War Begins (Snape had to 
know he was on their side, so that scene was relevant).

Well, in OotP Sirius gets a lot of space because he is, in a way, 
the central figure (not counting Harry, obviously) of the book. 
Again (he was in PoA). Why the gap in GoF than? I think it's because 
JKR simply created Sirius with the intention of having Harry 
experience personal loss. One would think he's had enough personal 
losses in his life, being an orphan, but it's different. Harry never 
knew his parents. Sirius was someone that came into his life as a 
wonderful surprise, then turned out not to be wonderful but 
a 'normal' person with qualities and flaws, and still they cared 
about each other and wanted to keep up their relationship when - bye 
bye. He was gone.

My rambling has a point... oh yes. I think it's possible to see 
Sirius as useless, as a hindrance, as irrelevant in OotP if you 
consider him strictly in plot terms. Either as 'Harry's personal 
loss waiting to happen' or as 'reckless animagus who'd outlived his 
usefulness to the Order', there are canon arguments. But it is also 
possible to see Sirius as wasted potential. He didn't fulfill that 
potential while he was stuck in Grimmauld place, and that's all. 

I also don't see how JKR would've managed to fit him in HBP 
(repeating what he did in GoF?), and that reinforces my impression 
that she simply didn't know what to do with him anymore. He's not a 
werewolf, so he wouldn't be able to do interesting things such as go 
live in werewolf den.

One thought more: when all plotline trouble is over and supposing 
we'll have a happy ending, how will JKR manage Sirius's being dead? 
It is reasonable to expect Harry will miss him, in the middle of all 
the 'Hooray the Wizarding World is saved!' festivities. Just 
wondering.

Lucianam (obviously not happy that Sirius is dead).








From nrenka at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 22:01:33 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:01:33 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkgkjo+r7dg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkglnt+96ih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142495

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

<massive snippity of music listings>

> Throw in some Rachmaninov, Debussy, Mahler and Beethovan (sic).  
> Add a bit of Mozart (Dumbledore's influence) and I think we've got 
> a good start.  (I considered Wagner, for obvious reasons, but I'm 
> not sure Snape would honestly go for it.)

Of course, all of this begs the question: how are they going to 
*listen* to it?

We have Wizarding Wireless, but we've never seen evidence of any of 
those at Hogwarts.  No mention of them in the dormitories, for sure.  
Muggle technology doesn't work at Hogwarts either (camera FLINTs 
aside and all of that), so no LP listening for the Muggleborns at 
Hogwarts.  No evidence of music education, that's for sure.

I suppose one could conceptualize the pureblood Slytherin kids 
getting a kick out of Muggle music as a rebellion, but I don't quite 
see it, myself.  Half-bloods such as Snape who are patently 
obsesessed with expurgating part of their heritage?  Don't see it 
either.  Dumbledore is an exception, but don't forget that he also 
predates the era of recorded music.

Don't forget about music distribution in trying to think about these 
issues, half-serious or not.  Music doesn't just replicate itself, it 
doesn't play itself, and it doesn't spread itself.  You can't write 
the history of any music without thinking about those issues (and 
it's amazing how much of them my students keep taking for granted...).

-Nora claps her hands and brings her professional cred to bear for 
once when it's actually useful (proud member of the AMS)







From tab1669 at elnet.com  Fri Nov  4 22:08:47 2005
From: tab1669 at elnet.com (flyingmonkeypurple)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:08:47 -0000
Subject: Lilly and James
Message-ID: <dkgm5f+b7pn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142496

I was reading the first book again and I noticed that Hagrid told 
Harry that both Lily and James were Head boy and Head girl (page 55 
USA). Who would let James be Head boy? He was such a trouble maker. He 
did not follow the rules. Maybe as he got older he didn't get into as 
much trouble. Maybe it has to do with Character. Harry got to be 
Quidditch captain even though he has gotten in trouble a lot. Any 
thoughts?

flyingmonkeypurple












From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 22:15:57 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:15:57 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkgji9+f1p9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgmit+3o9l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142497

>Carol:
> Harry, of course, is not a demon/daemon, but if my theory is
correct,
> he will have acquired Voldemort's power of possession, the ability
to
> enter and control another person, through the transfer of powers at
> Godric's Hollow.

a_svirn:
Then why is he not a daemon/demon? If he has this ability I'd say 
he's very much of one. On the other hand, he himself said in OOP 
that he is NOT able to possess people. Of course, he could have been 
unaware of his own powers, but since Dumbledore did not correct him 
on the point, he was probably in the right of it. 

>Ceridwen:
>The demon has no body. It's a spirit being, like God and the
>angels. God walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of
>Eden, but he was spirit, not flesh. A distinction is drawn in the
>Bible. 

a_svirn:

What distinction? Were there any demons in the Garden of Eden? 

>Ceridwen:
And, God couldn't become Man, a physical birth had to be
>accomplished in order for the Divine to physically interact with
>Mankind. Ordinarily, we can't see, touch, or hear God, angels or
>demons

a_svirn:

I don't know about "ordinarily", but any number of witches was 
burned at the stake for not only touching demons, but having sexual 
relationship with them and bearing them children.  










From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 23:17:34 2005
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:17:34 -0000
Subject: Harrycrux again (was: Why can't Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <dkg6g3+rtdu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgq6e+3n5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142498

> expectopatronnie: 
> Neri, I liked some of your explenations, although I'm not 
altogerher 
> sure I'm convinced. But, even if I do go along with you, could you 
> explain why *Harry* is the Horcrux, and not solely his scar? Most 
of 
> your argument would still work, but Harry would not have to die, 
> only to have his scar removed.
> 

Neri:
We were specifically told that living things can be Hxs, but we 
weren't told (or given any clues I'm aware of) that *scars* can be 
Hxs. Since we know very little about Hxs anyway, Hx!scar is certainly 
something JKR might get away with, but it won't be very good writing, 
IMO. If Harry does carry a Voldy soul piece I'd want the explanation 
how he can get rid of it to be a bit more profound and dramatic than 
that.

> expectopatronnie:
> Also, I really don't think the 'monster' or 'creature' words 
> concerning Harry's crush to Ginny are of any relevence here. We all 
> have monsters and creatures like that inside us (I hope you do 
> too!), and none of us are HX of LV!
>

Neri:
Most of us aren't supposed to carry a piece of a Dark Lord inside us. 
The choice of words certainly sounds intended. It repeats 
consistently in several different places in HBP. It might be a red 
herring, of course (and a rather sneaky one if it is) but not a 
coincidence.
 
> Neri:  
> > 10. Unintentional Hx: I agree that it wouldn't be very logical for
> > Voldy to make Harry a Hx and immediately trying to kill him. As a
> > whole, it appears Voldy isn't aware at all that Harry is his Hx. 
> But I
> > see a very good scenario for unintentional Hx: when he went to GH,
> > Voldy was planning to use Harry's murder to rip his soul, and turn
> > *Lily* into his Hx. This is why he tried to spare her, which JKR
> > recently confirmed. 
>
 
> expectopatronnie: 
> Did she really? Like the rest of us, I've been wondering why LV 
told 
> Lily to step aside, for ages now. Can you give us the link to this 
> confirmation? 
>


Neri: 
>From the three-parts interview with TLC and Mugglenet
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-
anelli-1.htm

**************************************************************
ES: This is one of my burning questions since the third book - why 
did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually 
have let her live?

JKR: Mmhm.

ES: Why?

JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer, you're absolutely 
right.
**************************************************************


Since in the second answer JKR confirms that Voldy did offer Lily to 
live, I guess the "Mhhm" sound in her first answer was in response to 
the "Would he actually have let her live?" part. This answer fits 
quite well with the theory, IMO, since life as an Imperio'ed Hx can 
hardly be called living. In any case, the silence and the "can't tell 
you" suggest this is an important point.


Neri







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 23:32:08 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:32:08 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkgji9+f1p9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgr1o+7oc8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142499

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...>
wrote:

> Ceridwen:
> Yeah, I was trying for some levity.  I didn't want Steve to 
> think I was 'yelling' at him.  Still, Harry's along for the ride,
> or getting a camera's eye view of what LV's seeing. [Referring 
> to Nagini and the attack on Arthur]
> 

bboyminn:

Nor did I want you to think I was yelling at you. I do understand your
position, and it makes logical sense; I just don't agee and see my own
alternative logic.

As far as the Big Snake, which we can safely assume is Nagini, that
attacked Arthur. This is the only other clear example we have of
possession, and it really is not that clear.

In this case, I agree that Voldemort could have placed his intangible
self into Nagini and sent the snake to the Ministry, while Voldemort's
conscious self rode along, and his physical body remained behind. That
seems prefectly reasonable. I"m leaning more toward, Voldemort fully
and physically being inside the snake, but I really can't say for
sure. So, in this case, nontangible possession is very possible.

> 
> Ceridwen:
> I love the possession theory.  IMO, it fits in all sorts of 
> ways. The discussion now is about fine-tuning it, apparently. 
> So, on the agreement side, we can speculate that it's a power 
> transfered to Harry by LV at GH; it leaves Harry free to use 
> his own will; it covers why Harry didn't die an unnaturally 
> early death like the hosts Vapor!Mort occupies; it can play a
> part in the final battle without orcing Harry to duel LV or 
> to use an Unforgiveable.  Any more? 
> ...edited...
> Ceridwen, who does like the idea of possession as one of the 
> traits LV passed along to Harry at GH, and sees the devil, or
> at least feels  his presence, in the details.
>

bboyminn:

As to the small point of how Harry gained the ability of possession, I
can go either way. I'm not married to the idea that he gained this
skill from Voldemort. It could be Harry own unique skill or it could
have been transferred when the AK Curse failed; either way.

Just so we are all working from the same recall and bank of knowledge,
here is the quote of Harry's possession in the Ministry of Magic.

--- OotP; Am Ed; HB, Pg 815-816 ---
And then Harry's scar butst open. He knew he was dead. It was pain
beyond imagining, pain past endurance--

He was gone from the hall, he was locked in the coils of a creature
with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his body
ended and the creature's began. They were fused together, bound by
pain, and there was no escape.

And when the creture spoke, it used Harr's mouth, so that in his agony
he felt his jaw move....

"Kill me now, Dumbledore..."

Blinded and dying, every part of hism screaming for release, harry
felt the creature use him again....

"If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy..."

Let the pain sop, thought Harry. Let him kill us..... End it,
Dumbledore.... Death is nothing compared to this....

And I'll see Sirisu again....

And as Harry's heart filled with emotion, the creature's coils
loosened, the pain was gone, Harry was lying facedown on the floor, ...

- - - End Quote - - -

Let me point out certain phrases that seem to re-enforce my personal
position of physical possession. Though, I admit they don't really
/prove/ anything.

"...locked in the coils of a creature..., so tightly bound that Harry
did not know where his body ended and the creature's began. They were
fused together..."

Again, that sounds pretty physical to me; locked together, tightly
bound, can't tell where one begins and the other ends, fused together. 

As you point out, neither of us is trying to shoot down the basic
concept, we just disagree over a minor detail, and I can live with
that, I don't have to convince you. In the end, it could go either
way, and as long as the main objective is accomplished, the minor
details aren't that critical.

Regardless of the minor details, I think it is a sound concept, but
that sort of scares me. While I greatly enjoy our many long
discussions in this group, I worry that, in a sense, we are ruining
the last book for ourselves. What if we are right and we have
everything, regarding this one aspect, figured out? Are we going to be
thrilled that we knew it, or are we going to be disappointed because
the final book held no surprises? Or are we going to spend two years
speculating on grand and glorious possiblilities that the actual book,
with it's limited focus and context, can't possibly live up too.

Regardless, I'm sure I will read and love the last book, and will love
it even if I am disappointed in it. I love HBP, but I don't like it
much, it was a good book, but, really, across the course of the book,
not much really happened. It had its high points but mostly it seemed
like it was merely moving forward in time and covering necessary
ground. That's not all bad, necessary ground is still necessary
ground; sort of like driving through Nebraska to get to Colorado.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn 

PS: Gee... only two or (groan) three more years to go.







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  4 23:43:48 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:43:48 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkgkjo+r7dg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgrnk+mdqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142500


> Betsy Hp:

> 
> But then I realized that Snape would have been in his late teens, 
> early twenties (per the Lexicon which puts his birth year at '59 
> or '60) in the late 70's and early 80's.  So he'd be a disaffected 
> youth with working class roots (possibly/probably) and some major 
> anger issues at the birth of punk.  Snape and punk?  Oh hells yeah!  
> So add in some Velvet Underground, Ramones, Patti Smith, the Clash, 


"White Riot" seems appropriate... Holy mind-meld, Betty, I TOTALLY see
young Snape living in a Clash t-shirt!!-- AND:

 > Add a bit 
> of Mozart (Dumbledore's influence) and I think we've got a good 
> start.  

I have such a clear image of Dumbledore introducing Snape to Mozart
and especially Bach, as a way to soothe the sagave breast when Snape
first switched sides.  At such an emotionally vulnerable time it would
have totally blown his mind, the cello suites in particular..  

-- Sydney, 






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov  4 23:52:43 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:52:43 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dkge5l+e321@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgs8b+o9j3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142501

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:

> I'll eat the full measure of crow be I wrong, but who doesn't by now 
> suspect that it's going to come down to those sorts of things rather 
> than some wands blazing magical skillz showdown, or last minute 
> revelations of seekrit plots and agents?  Lily didn't do any special 
> magic or rituals or any of that to save baby Harry's life; pure 
> emotion, and a positive one at that.
> 

Pippin:
Why can't it be both? Sure, Slytherins need to acknowledge the power of
love. But we saw what an absolute botch Sirius made of the seekrit-keeper
switch. He could have used a little Snakey advice. 

I haven't gotten much response to my idea that Sirius allowed himself to
be a marked man for the sake of giving DE Snape some credibility. But,
if  Sirius thought that Voldemort had ordered Snape to kill him, that could
explain why Bella shot a stunner at him (the jet of red light), and why
Sirius taunted her.

Pippin






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  4 23:59:15 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:59:15 -0000
Subject: Phi and the mechanics of possession
In-Reply-To: <dkeac7+93m7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgskj+8s1e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142502



bboymn:
> For one corporeal person to possess another, it makes no sense, if
the possessor leaves his body behind and vulnerable. <snip>

Carol:
I agree that it would make no sense for Voldemort to leave a
vulnerable body behind when he possesses someone, not just in that
scene but at any time after he acquires a body. His body would be an
empty shell like the soul-sucked Barty Crouch's, and anyone (even a
disaffected DE like Wormtail) could destroy it, leaving him once again
as Vapor!mort.

Valky:
As much as you'd probably like me to avoid it Carol, this might take
some Maths. <beg>

As I wrote before, IMO, Possession will involve the conciousness.
Scientists are trying to come up with a theory of conciousness and
some way to measure what it is,  but even so I am not sure JKR will be
espousing too much of their work in Book 7, I would say that JKR would
more likely to have feet in the theological concepts of conciousness.
That's the good news. The bad news is that even these have
mathematical basis. The greeks developed their theories of
conciousness in the sacred geometries. The geometries work together to
form different aspects of conciousness, the greatest of which, is love. 

The golden mean/ratio (derived from the fibonacci sequence)
mathematically describes many phenomenon in nature such as lightning,
tree and river branches, molecular patterns of metals, and snowflakes.
And just for fun I'll mention that the fibonacci sequence is even used
in knitting patterns! <g> 

If HP follows this meta-concept of conciousness then it would explain
how during the possession in the MOM Harry felt himself "wrapped in
the coils of a creature with red eyes". The key words here are 'coils'
- the logarithmic golden ratio coils; and the 'red eyes' -  red is the
colour associated with the "endless knot" which would be an
appropriate golden mean application for Voldemort's character due to
its said association with the source of misery (there's even a
wordplay in it that fits- LV, endless, NOT!). 

See a picture of the endless knot here:

http://www.to.infn.it/argo/knot.jpg

If JKR's concept of conciousness is related to the sacred geometry,
and I would say it definitely could be, then I am sure JKR would give
Harry the Golden mean spiral which is the ideal geometrical
representation of the golden mean. It is long elegant graduating coil
that looks something like the graceful arc of a particularly ornate
feather quill to me. 

See a picture of the golden mean spiral here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

NB Scroll down.

The Golden mean spiral is strongly associated with Love, and I think
that it will, like the coils of the creature are used to represent
Voldemorts Conciousness, be used to represent Harry's conciousness.

The golden mean spiral can be derived from the golden number Phi which
is an amazing number, When you square it, it equals 1 + itself, and
when you cube it, it equals 1 + 2 * itself and so on through all the
powers. Phi is approximately 1.6 or otherwise approximated by half of
one plus the square root of five. The list of Phi phenomenon is
endless and I recommend googling it. To be frank with you, there is
not much left in the natural world that hasn't been proven to have
some relationship with phi, even the human heartbeat follows a Phi
sequence! Hence for many thousands of years Phi has been associated
with the very conciousness of life.

** Aside -Now this is where I *do* think the books allude to the
mythical mathematics of conciousness because I am quite sure Phi is
(deliberately or inadvertently?) represented by:  Harry + The
hor*crux*es(five)/Voldie & Nagini. 

 
So my theory is this -
I submit that JKR has in mind a concept similar to the mathematical
behaviour of PHI for the power of the whole untarnished soul in the
Potterverse. And that it will echo the ability of the Phoenix in the
Potterverse to carry enormously heavy loads. This will relate to the
power of Harry's heart - to the Golden mean spiral which is Love. 

It could relate metaphorically or JKR could have in mind direct plot
implications that describe the Harry's conciousness in a way that will
echo Phi, or we could see a little of both.

AS usual I am hedging my bets on both and I would then assume that it
means -
1. if Harry uses the power of possession on Voldemort he will
essentially be One plus Voldemort IOW his whole being will be involved
in the possession.  
2. Harry will be able to carry impossible loads in his conciousness
(Phoenix conciousness). IOW he might be able to carry physical things
(two way mirror?) in and out of the veil, or he could possibly possess
more than one being at a time.
3. It will be his heart/Love that makes this possible and this will be
explained directly in the book.

Steve said above that it makes no sense for one corporeal being to
possess another and both Carol and Steve are curious as to what
happens to the body of the possessor. One other amazing thing about
PHI is its resonant recursion. In other words it copies *itself*
indefinitely (Phi proportions are found in the DNA helix). If JKR has
developed her concept of WW conciousness and being based on principles
that are mathematically supported by PHI, the the conciousness of the
possessor can be said to be the infinitessimal source of their entire
being. It can be reduced back to the singular point (like Phi) and
then 'remade' effortlessly by the natural recursion of the original
source. Or IOW the whole possessor can become so small a thing that it
could occupy something else, and snap back to being a complete
body/mind/soul creation easily. Phi recursion is used to explain
vortexes and can be shown to both invert and grow, each just as
naturally and effortlessly as each other.

Of course this could all be way off the mark, but I thought it was
worth passing along.

Valky










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 00:07:08 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:07:08 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod -To Flint or not to Flint, that is the question.
In-Reply-To: <dkglnt+96ih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgt3c+enkm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142503

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> ...
> We have Wizarding Wireless, but we've never seen evidence of 
> any of those at Hogwarts. No mention of them in the dormitories, 
> for sure.  Muggle technology doesn't work at Hogwarts either 
> (camera FLINTs aside and all of that), so no LP listening for 
> the Muggleborns at Hogwarts.  No evidence of music education, 
> that's for sure.
>
> ...edited...  
> You can't write the history of any music without thinking about 
> those issues (and it's amazing how much of them my students keep 
> taking for granted...).
> 
> -Nora claps her hands and brings her professional cred to bear for 
> once when it's actually useful (proud member of the AMS)
>

bboyminn:

Well, I'm seriously straying off topic here; both thread and group.
And further offer apologies for what I know will be a very snarky
attitude.

I just find it odd that you can critisize (with good humor) your
students for their lack of awareness and 'taken for granted' attitude
toward the modern world, and at the same time, you yourself, consider
Collin's camera to be a FLINT. 

Why would a camera be a FLINT? 

Do you know what it takes to make a camera? An oatmeal box, a strip of
film, a pin, a couple of flat pieces of cardboard, and maybe a few
rubber bands; really that's all. You can take prefectly good pictures
with a 'pinhole camera'. (Notice that I did NOT mention a lense at all.)

http://www.exploratorium.edu/light_walk/camera_todo.html

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/education/lessonPlans/pinholeCamera/

http://users.rcn.com/stewoody/makecam.htm

The next step up from a pinhole camera, is the common everyday
factory-made box camera. I had several of these when I was young and
they are very straight forward. The focus is fixed and the shutter is
purely mechanical. They take perfectly acceptable photographs. 

Don't feel bad though, you are not the only one. The JKR fan world is
filled with people who have never seen a box camera, and can't imagine
a camera possibly working without fancy electronics. But, what do you
suppose people did before 'fancy electronics'? Simple, they use plain
ordinary box cameras. In fact, they had cameras and nice photographs
before they actually had film. Old cameras used chemically coated
glass plates in place of film. 

So, in conclusion, only in the hopelessly jaded digital age could
anyone consider Collin's camera a FLINT.

Hope I haven't been too snarky, and sorry for not addressing your
central point, but the whole camera thing punches my buttons.

Peace out.

Steve/bboyminn







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 01:35:40 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:35:40 -0000
Subject: Phi and the mechanics of possession
In-Reply-To: <dkgvqv+dslb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkh29c+s5hq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142505

(Reposted with typos corrected and unclear sentences reworded)

Valky wrote:
> As much as you'd probably like me to avoid it Carol, this might take
some Maths. <beg>
>
<Carol snips elaborate theories involving the Golden Mean, Phi, and
an endless knot (see, I did read it!)>

Carol responds:
Hi, Valky. I'm sure that you intended this explanation to be helpful,
but I'm afraid that my mind doesn't work in the same way as yours and
so it doesn't really help me to grasp the concept. I do think there's
a precedent in legend and mythology for physical possession and that
demons (the agents of possession) were perceived as physical beings,
and I can see Voldie in this light in both the MoM battle and the
Nagini sequences. (The "creature" metaphor seems to suggest an
affinity with Nagini, if not a shared nature; it's as if Harry is
possessed by Nagini!mort.) However, I'm inclined to think that Harry's
(hypothetical) possession of Voldemort in Book 7 would involve only
spirit (or consciousness, if you prefer), so that when he leaves the
Veiled archway using Sirius's body (as we've previously postulated),
he could reinhabit his own body (which he would have left behind when
he possessed Voldemort before entering the archway).

I think the key word in the possession scene in OoP is not "coil" but
"creature," the same word that Neri associates with Harry the Horcrux.
"In essence divided," as I said in another post, seems to refer to
Voldemort/Nagini rather than Voldemort. Or at least that's how I, in
my mathematically challenged way, read the scene.

Carol, who does at least see the parallels you've made with Orpheus
and the Labors of Hercules but doesn't require them for the sorts of
interpretation that she's most interested in









From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sat Nov  5 02:34:01 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:34:01 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkglnt+96ih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkh5mp+rrpf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142506

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> We have Wizarding Wireless, but we've never seen evidence of any of 
> those at Hogwarts.  No mention of them in the dormitories, for sure.  
> Muggle technology doesn't work at Hogwarts either (camera FLINTs 
> aside and all of that), so no LP listening for the Muggleborns at 
> Hogwarts.  

[Harry] had lagged behind after every Potions lesson that week in an 
attempt to corner Slughorn, but the Potions master always left the 
dungeon so fast that Harry had not been able to catch him. Twice, Harry 
had gone to his office and knocked, but received no reply, though on 
the second occasion he was sure he had heard the quickly stifled sounds 
of an old gramophone.
  
   - HBP, Chap. 21

It may be a just a Flint, but, surely, so skilled a wizard as Slughorn 
could figure out some way to play a phonograph sans electricity?

  - CMC







From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Fri Nov  4 22:11:40 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:11:40 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <dkgbts+iut2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkgmas+kc1t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142507

Zgirnius wrote:

> While the names certainly follow a pattern, so do the physical 
> attributes. Black==Sirius Black. It is his name, yes. But, he also has 
> the animagus form of a large black dog, and he has dark eyes/hair. I'd 
> say he's a good fit base don appearance. And white=?. He's got white 
> hair and a white beard, with blue eyes. All light...I don't see how 
> either Fleur or Luna are better fits.
>

Truthbeauty:
  While that is true, DD wasn't always silver haired. In his younger
years he actually resembled Ron, auburn hair, blue eyes. Also I do not
believe that descriptions of him really give the feeling of light.
Whenever his wand sparks it seems to be red light, his clothing is
usually described as richly colored. Contrast this to Luna who is
always described as pale with pale eyes and pale blond hair. She even
wears silver dress robles to Slughorn's Christmas party. I don't know
I just see the names as being more important than the appearance. Also
it is interseting, considering the parallels between Harry and Tom
Riddle that the person who introduced Tom to the wizarding world is
now dead. And I do believe Hagrid to be a major character in Harry's
world. He is after all the Keeper of the Keys for Hogwarts School of
Witchcraft and Wizardry, and I think that will be incredibly important
in the 7th book. Just some thoughts

Truthbeauty







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 02:45:58 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:45:58 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkgrnk+mdqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkh6d6+hso2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142508

> >>Sydney:
> "White Riot" seems appropriate... Holy mind-meld, Betty, I TOTALLY 
> see young Snape living in a Clash t-shirt!!

Betsy Hp:
I know.  Isn't he totally lickable?

> >>Sydney:
> I have such a clear image of Dumbledore introducing Snape to Mozart
> and especially Bach, as a way to soothe the sagave breast when     
> Snape first switched sides.  At such an emotionally vulnerable    
> time it would have totally blown his mind, the cello suites in    
> particular..  

Betsy Hp:
Since I'm liking the idea of the Prince family not being very high-
brow themselves, I imagine Snape being introduced to classical music 
by Lucius and totally getting into the whole Romantic era -- all 
that pure emotion and angst.  Dumbledore would introduce him to the 
beauty of control and precision.  And I agree that Snape would be at 
an especially vulnerable point at that time.  A time where it would 
be better to master his emotions rather than let them run him.

> >>Nora:
> Of course, all of this begs the question: how are they going to
> *listen* to it?
> We have Wizarding Wireless, but we've never seen evidence of any of
> those at Hogwarts.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I wasn't being serious about Snape having an iPod.  (I doubt the 
question was asked seriously either.)  But I will say the idea of 
Hogwarts being totally without music is rather horrifying, 
personally.  Especially when JKR appears to want to paint the WW as 
home to all that is creative and individual, while Muggles are more 
bland and generic. (Dumbledore vs. Dursley)

Though the very fact that there is a rock group in the WW that is 
well known by kids in the WW suggests that they must listen to 
*something*.  It's just not Harry's (nor JKR's I think) cup of tea 
so we don't see any direct evidence of it.  (I believe there's also 
a glee club of some sort.  Didn't someone's glee club activities 
affect the DA club meeting time?) 

> >>Nora:
> I suppose one could conceptualize the pureblood Slytherin kids
> getting a kick out of Muggle music as a rebellion, but I don't    
> quite see it, myself.

Betsy Hp:
There is that. (Like white Southern kids listening to black music in 
the US, back in the day.)  I also wonder if JKR means for us to 
conclude that anything creative was actually done by a wizard.  (The 
whole Shakespeare was a wizard, Piccaso was a wizard, thing.)  I 
read one fanfic where Draco is playing some music for Ron and Ron 
thinks they're rip-offs of some wizard bands he knows and Draco has 
to explain that they're actually Muggle and that wizard groups had 
been ripping off the Muggle world for years. So that's another 
theory. (e.g. Elvis?)

> >>Nora:
> Half-bloods such as Snape who are patently obsesessed with         
> expurgating part of their heritage? Don't see it either.

Betsy Hp:
I'm going with the, Snape goes back to his old neighborhood to 
slither out of direct bloody action and do his behind the scenes 
work (potions, I guess?) for Voldemort after graduation, theory.  
And of course *Snape* isn't going to be hiding from the scary 
Muggles.  So he kicks around the old stomping grounds (literally, 
one wonders?), and ooh, hey!  What's that compelling music, like all 
of his rage crystallized into sound?

> >>Nora:
> Dumbledore is an exception, but don't forget that he also predates 
> the era of recorded music.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So Dumbledore will only listen to live music?  That seems awfully 
limiting for someone so musically enclined, IMO. (JKR talks about 
him humming to himself all the time.)  Dumbledore is described as 
enjoying chamber music on his Chocolate Frog Card (in a particularly 
non-shocking blurb) so it's hard for me to see Dumbledore's interest 
in music as an exception.

Surely the WW can figure out how to record and distribute music.  
They distribute photographs and posters easily enough.  Heck, they 
record and distribute *memories* easily enough.  (Wait -- pensieve 
music recordings? hmmm.)

Betsy Hp  (who also likes the idea of the Rolling Stones' "Paint it 
Black" on Snape's iPod, because hello, obvious. <g>)






From kjones at telus.net  Sat Nov  5 03:13:04 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:13:04 -0800
Subject: Harrycrux and possession
Message-ID: <436C2340.9040205@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142509

KJ writes:
    There have been some truly awe-inspiring posts on the possession and 
horcrux theories of late but they seem to revolve around the theme of 
Harry's survival. I would like to add some thoughts to this scenario.

1.  Harry is already famous merely for surviving Voldemort's curse. This 
fame is already causing him problems, interfering in his living a normal 
life, and changing the perceptions, of people who don't know him, about 
what kind of person he is. JKR has made it plain that he hates it. What 
would happen to his life if he became "the boy who vanquished Voldemort 
forever"? It doesn't appear to me to be the kind of life he would want 
to lead.

2.  Harry has had everyone he cares about taken away from him except 
Hermione, Ron, and Ginny. If he had a choice between walking into the 
arch of the Veil, taking Voldemort with him, and being greeted by his 
parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and perhaps Ginny (if this plays out), or 
living the kind of life he would be faced with as a survivor, which do 
you think he would choose? I think that this would be a very interesting 
concept in the final book, if Voldemort was greeted by all of the people 
he had murdered and tortured, while Harry was greeted by those who loved 
him. It would be Voldemort's greatest fear and Harry's greatest desire.

3.   The concept of the possession makes a great deal of sense, as does 
the possibility of the final conflict in the MoM.  He would be dragging 
Voldemort into the waiting arms of his parents, Sirius, and Dumbledore, 
at the very least. It would almost be a reflection of what Harry saw in 
the mirror of Erised, which would make the books almost come full circle.

4.   It might also show the way for Snape's redemption, as I believe he 
will be at the final conflict. It may be his killing blow to Voldemort, 
which would save Harry from having to cast the curse. This would allow 
Harry to walk into the Veil with a complete pure soul. As his body fell, 
Voldemort's remaining soul piece would be drawn to Harry, as the final 
horcrux, and dragged with him beyond the veil. An actual possession may 
not even be required under these circumstances, just a grim 
determination to finish the job.

5.   Harry is more than single-minded enough to pull this off. It does 
not require his knowledge of being an accidental horcrux until the final 
seconds. Harry has consistently thought fast enough on his feet to 
figure out what is going on in time to take the action he deems 
necessary. This would also fit with Harry's own sacrificial nature, and 
repeat the sacrifice made by his mother. It also would not require 
special skills, training, or knowledge, that he does not appear to have.

6.   As I have long suspected that Snape will also be killed in his 
redemption, I believe that it will be at the instant of Voldemort's true 
death. I believe that the mark may cause the death, similar to the 
burning up of Dumbledore's hand, of all of the DEs at the death of 
Voldemort. This would be the only way that anyone in the WW could 
possibly be convinced that Voldemort was truly dead this time. I think 
Snape knows or suspects that this will happen, and that part of his 
redemption for many things will be in the giving up of his life for the 
completion of DD's plan. It would be of interest to me to see if Snape 
would be welcomed, in the same way as Harry, beyond the Veil by those 
waiting for him.

7.   I tend to think that Ron and Hermione will survive as there needs 
to be some continuity shown between the world of Harry Potter as it was 
and the new safe world that his sacrifice has brought. There has to be 
some hope and resolution at the end.

KJ




From elfundeb at gmail.com  Sat Nov  5 03:18:58 2005
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:18:58 -0500
Subject: Slughorn's Gramophone (WAS: Snape's iPod)
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0511041918r36c689c1g7e81379d20ec47db@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142510

On 11/4/05, Caius Marcius <coriolan at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [Harry] had lagged behind after every Potions lesson that week in an
> attempt to corner Slughorn, but the Potions master always left the
> dungeon so fast that Harry had not been able to catch him. Twice, Harry
> had gone to his office and knocked, but received no reply, though on
> the second occasion he was sure he had heard the quickly stifled sounds
> of an old gramophone.
>
> - HBP, Chap. 21
>
> It may be a just a Flint, but, surely, so skilled a wizard as Slughorn
> could figure out some way to play a phonograph sans electricity?

 It didn't require such a skilled a wizard as Slughorn to do it. Anyone can
play an old gramophone without electricity. They're crank-operated. So no
flint. (IIRC, Lupin had one in the celluloid version of PoA.)
 What we need magic for is to figure out how to shrink the gramophone down
to iPod size for jogging purposes. ;-)
 Debbie
who owns an early model Victrola and has learned the fine art of cranking up
the turntable to exactly 78 rpm


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 03:11:36 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:11:36 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkh6d6+hso2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkh7t8+8j4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142511

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:


> Betsy Hp:
>
> But I will say the idea of Hogwarts being totally without music is 
> rather horrifying, personally.  Especially when JKR appears to want 
> to paint the WW as home to all that is creative and individual, 
> while Muggles are more bland and generic. (Dumbledore vs. Dursley)

'All that is creative and individual' is a bit of an exaggeration, 
methinks.  The WW is definitely behind the Muggle world in any number 
of innovations.  I wouldn't say that being tradition-bound and 
creative are mutually exclusive, but at least I get the picture of 
wizards as decidedly behind Muggles and lacking in innovation in many 
areas.  Arthur is fascinated because of Muggle creativity, after 
all.  I've speculated other times about the potentially stultifying 
aspects of magic on artistic development, but that's a long shot.  
(When you can make paintings move, who needs Expressionism?  That's 
my read on the magical portraits and the whole 'wizarding photos are 
better, they move' issue.)

In addition, it's not a school system designed to create creative 
individuals--from all of the classes we've seen.  There's some 
theory, yes, but the orientation is far more "Can you do it?  Good!"  
There's no insitutional higher education.
 
There's no evidence given for music education whatsoever.  Now 
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's not 
encouraging to my perspective upon their musical culture, or any 
standard of musical literacy.  (Which is very low at present anyways 
in the real world.)

> Betsy Hp:
> I also wonder if JKR means for us to conclude that anything 
> creative was actually done by a wizard.  

I hope not.  Hoariest of bad fanfiction cliches and laughable on best 
days.

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm going with the, Snape goes back to his old neighborhood to 
> slither out of direct bloody action and do his behind the scenes 
> work (potions, I guess?) for Voldemort after graduation, theory.  
> And of course *Snape* isn't going to be hiding from the scary 
> Muggles.  So he kicks around the old stomping grounds (literally, 
> one wonders?), and ooh, hey!  What's that compelling music, like 
> all of his rage crystallized into sound?

Snape hanging out in Muggle bars?  Particularly at the time, without 
music quite as portable as it is in the present...I keep harping on 
this, but you absolutely have to have a point of dissemination for 
this stuff.  That's where the problem lies.

> Betsy Hp:
> So Dumbledore will only listen to live music? 

No, but Dumbledore has full memories then of the musical culture 
which predates the recording culture.  Most people who haven't 
studied this in detail don't appreciate how unbelievably radically 
different musical culture IS in the two eras.

> That seems awfully limiting for someone so musically enclined, IMO. 
> (JKR talks about him humming to himself all the time.)

Some people think of it as limiting, and some very influential 
theorists have thought of recording as profoundly damaging to 
classical Western musical culture.  It's, ummm, complex.  It's also 
so wildly OT that I'll just leave it at that.  I doubt anyone wants a 
lecture on the sociology of music. :)

> Dumbledore is described as enjoying chamber music on his Chocolate 
> Frog Card (in a particularly non-shocking blurb) so it's hard for 
> me to see Dumbledore's interest in music as an exception.

Chamber music has particular connotations (especially at the present) 
which I suspect JKR is alluding to.  It's the music of the 
connoiseur, music for the person who can play it (as this is how 
people would hear chamber music, you know?  Those Mozart quartets 
were written to be sold, not to be heard in concerts for the mass 
public), music for the person who is interested in the conversation 
of four friends.  It's certainly not mass popular music *anymore*, 
and it's always had a palpable aura of refinement.

> Surely the WW can figure out how to record and distribute music.  
> They distribute photographs and posters easily enough.  Heck, they 
> record and distribute *memories* easily enough.  (Wait -- pensieve 
> music recordings? hmmm.)

Recording is not a simple thing.  It changes the ontological status 
of a work of music, for one thing, but it also entails distribution 
methods and technology.  It's far, far more complex than printing.  
Given the small size of the population, live concerting is far more 
feasible--wizards don't have the transportation issues which kept 
music local and spurred the creation of national and city-based music 
cultures, both in European models of music and non-Western, as well.  
(I think of Hindusthani gharanas, here.)  Wireless, and an allusion 
but no showing of a phonograph...certainly nothing close to CD 
technology.

Again, it's all about transmission and the problems thereof.

-Nora is most skeptical of the cultural cross-pollination claims 
light-heartedly made in the original...






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 03:25:46 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:25:46 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkh6d6+hso2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkh8nq+simn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142512


> > >>Sydney:
> > "White Riot" seems appropriate... Holy mind-meld, Betty, I TOTALLY 
> > see young Snape living in a Clash t-shirt!!
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I know.  Isn't he totally lickable?
 
*dies*  *regains composure*


> Betsy Hp:
> Since I'm liking the idea of the Prince family not being very high-
> brow themselves, I imagine Snape being introduced to classical music 
> by Lucius

*sniffs*  Lucius is the sort of person who goes to the opera and then
talks through the whole thing.  He might have put music on in the
background to get the air of elegance, but I don't think he'd shut up
long enough for Snape to get the taste of it.  Lucius DID teach Snape
how to dress a bit better, how to make an entrance, and what the best
elf-made wine is.

> But I will say the idea of 
> Hogwarts being totally without music is rather horrifying, 
> personally.  

Yeah-- surely there's MAGICAL ways of playing music?  If there's
magical painting, there must be magical recording.  And thanks to
CMC's zingy detective work on Sluggy's gramophone!  

(special to Steve:  Pinhole camera podcast and links:

http://pocketplanetradio.typepad.com/pocket_planet_radio/2005/05/you_may_have_mi.html
)

 
> > >>Nora:
> > Half-bloods such as Snape who are patently obsesessed with         
> > expurgating part of their heritage? Don't see it either.

Ah, but a former white supremacist introduced to the wonders of jazz
by his civilizing new mentor?  Okay, I was joking about the Clash, but
I'm very attached to the idea of Dumbledore playing chamber music for
Snape.

>So he kicks around the old stomping grounds (literally, 
> one wonders?), and ooh, hey!  What's that compelling music, like all 
> of his rage crystallized into sound?

As Betsy points out as well, Snape spent his summers in a muggle
neighbourhood (probably: of course he could have been raised by the
Pinces or something, but it's the working theory).  He couldn't have
avoided the boom boxes. 

Sydney







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 03:44:49 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:44:49 -0000
Subject: Harry living or dying at the end ( again)  WAS: Re: Harrycrux and possession
In-Reply-To: <436C2340.9040205@telus.net>
Message-ID: <dkh9rh+h7ev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142513

> KJ writes:
>     There have been some truly awe-inspiring posts on the 
possession and 
> horcrux theories of late but they seem to revolve around the theme 
of 
> Harry's survival. I would like to add some thoughts to this 
scenario.

Alla:

Hi, Kathryn! I hope you will forgive me for continuing to argue for  
the possibility of Harry's survival. I made no  secret that I 
really, really, really want Harry to survive the series and if the 
death would be his only reward for all trials and tribulations of 
his life, that would probably one plot development that would make 
me put the books away and not come back to them. And I am NOT one of 
those readers who are ready to put the books away if the plot does 
not develop according to their wishes.


Right, so even though I want it to happen, I believe that canon 
leaves a possibility of that to come true. Although you could be 
right to - I think that possibility of Harry living or dying stands 
about 50/50 right now.


KJ:
JKR has made it plain that he hates it. What 
> would happen to his life if he became "the boy who vanquished 
Voldemort 
> forever"? It doesn't appear to me to be the kind of life he would 
want 
> to lead.

Alla:

But who says that this IS  the kind of life he would continue to 
lead if he survives at the end? Maybe he dissappears from the radar 
of WW and would leave a quiet life surrounding by the loved ones. 
Maybe though, he will acceept the role of the leader and will learn 
to disregard public curiousity, just like Dumbledore did.



KJ: 
> 2.  Harry has had everyone he cares about taken away from him 
except 
> Hermione, Ron, and Ginny. If he had a choice between walking into 
the 
> arch of the Veil, taking Voldemort with him, and being greeted by 
his 
> parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and perhaps Ginny (if this plays 
out), or 
> living the kind of life he would be faced with as a survivor, 
which do 
> you think he would choose? 
<snip>

Alla:

I personally like  Steve's speculation that Harry would go through 
Veil while battling Voldemort and  then after being greeted by loved 
ones comes back, because he still has many people who love him on 
the other side.

He has many adult figures taken from him, true. But Remus is alive, 
ALL Weasleys who love him as their own are alive, as you said Ron, 
Hermione and Ginny are alive, so I think Harry has plenty of those 
who want him to live.

But I will absolutely grant you that if during the book 7 Ginny 
dies, Harry IS a goner.


KJ:
>> 6.   As I have long suspected that Snape will also be killed in 
his 
> redemption, I believe that it will be at the instant of 
Voldemort's true 
> death. I believe that the mark may cause the death, similar to the 
> burning up of Dumbledore's hand, of all of the DEs at the death of 
> Voldemort. This would be the only way that anyone in the WW could 
> possibly be convinced that Voldemort was truly dead this time.

Alla:

Well, today I am in the charitable mood, so much as I want Snape to 
suffer, I don't think that it is impossible for him to survive 
either. :-)

Something has to happen to the Mark, true. It could as you said 
cause death, OR it could dissappear because of coming in contact 
with Love magic or something like that.

Oh, and JKR did say that the last word of last chapter is 
still "scar", so of course she can be pulling a fast one on us and 
not talking about Harry's scar, but if she does, i think it is more 
logical that she would be saying something to the effect " when he 
looked in the mirror , he did not see his famous scar" ( something 
more nicely writtem of course :-)) than about scar on Harry's body.




KJ:
 > 7.   I tend to think that Ron and Hermione will survive as there 
needs 
> to be some continuity shown between the world of Harry Potter as 
it was 
> and the new safe world that his sacrifice has brought. There has 
to be 
> some hope and resolution at the end.


Alla:

You could be right. I tend to think that all three of them will 
survive personally. I think JKR can pull it off and not to make it 
cheesy.

Alla,

who obviously just speculates here.






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 04:32:42 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 04:32:42 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkh5mp+rrpf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkhcla+lm99@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142514

"Caius Marcius" <coriolan at w...> wrote:
 
> It may be a just a Flint, but, surely, so skilled a wizard as 
Slughorn 
> could figure out some way to play a phonograph sans electricity?
> 
>   - CMC

zgirnius:
It is described as old-fashioned. Perhaps JKR does not mean 'compared 
to a CD player', but *really* old-fashioned. They did not run off 
electricity back in 1901...







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 04:38:17 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 04:38:17 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <dkgmas+kc1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkhcvp+kauj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142515

> Truthbeauty:
>   While that is true, DD wasn't always silver haired. In his younger
> years he actually resembled Ron, auburn hair, blue eyes. Also I do 
not
> believe that descriptions of him really give the feeling of light.
> Whenever his wand sparks it seems to be red light, his clothing is
> usually described as richly colored. Contrast this to Luna who is
> always described as pale with pale eyes and pale blond hair. She 
even
> wears silver dress robles to Slughorn's Christmas party. 

zgirnius:
Yes, I agree that Luna has more pale imagery about her. But she is 
far less significant to Harry than DD.

Truthbeauty:
> I just see the names as being more important than the appearance. > 
Also
> it is interseting, considering the parallels between Harry and Tom
> Riddle that the person who introduced Tom to the wizarding world is
> now dead. And I do believe Hagrid to be a major character in Harry's
> world. He is after all the Keeper of the Keys for Hogwarts School of
> Witchcraft and Wizardry, and I think that will be incredibly 
important
> in the 7th book. Just some thoughts

Yes, Hagrid is certainly important to Harry. But if we identify 
the 'red' victim by appearance, this suggests the Weasleys. Both Ron 
and Ginny are going (IMO) to be very important in Book 7, probably 
more so than Hagrid. I'd need to read the theory at the site you 
pointed out in greater detail to decide whether there are reasons 
besides Hagrid's name which make him a likelier candidate.






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sat Nov  5 05:57:03 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:57:03 -0000
Subject: Phi and the mechanics of possession
In-Reply-To: <dkh29c+s5hq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkhhjf+tg50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142516

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:
>
> (Reposted with typos corrected and unclear sentences reworded)
> 
> Valky wrote:
> > As much as you'd probably like me to avoid it Carol, this might take
> some Maths. <beg>
> >
> <Carol snips elaborate theories involving the Golden Mean, Phi, and
> an endless knot (see, I did read it!)>
> 
> Carol responds:
> Hi, Valky. I'm sure that you intended this explanation to be 
> helpful, but I'm afraid .... it doesn't really help me to grasp the  
> concept. I do think there's a precedent in legend and mythology for 
> physical possession ....and I can see Voldie in this light ... 
> However, I'm inclined to think that Harry's
> (hypothetical) possession of Voldemort in Book 7 would involve only
> spirit (or consciousness, if you prefer), so that when he leaves the
> Veiled archway ... he could reinhabit his own body (which he would 
> have left behind....

Valky:
Hi Carol, I actually find it surprising that you say that, since I
judged generally from your response in post#142484 that you were
leaning in the direction of body/body possession. I note now that you
were specifically referring to Voldemort in that message. But I find
it hard personally to separate possession into two quantities as you
have suggested. My major contention with doing so is that if Harry is
endowed with the magical power of Possession then canonically it
follows that it was transferred to him by Voldemort, hence it is
Voldemort's power, and to wit equal to Voldemort's power I would think.

I appreciate that you took the time to read and ponder my post in
spite of that fact that it is not your favourite subject matter. I am
sure we both would agree that if the final battle was to at all be
relatable to the Ancient Greek concepts of conciousness, or the
Eulisian Mysteries that the reading of it won't necessitate the reader
to know, understand or decipher the same. OTOH what is derivative of
them for the sleuth is not unprecedented ground for the HP plot. (at
least I think so anyway :D)

So on to the meat of the matter - Although we may just have to agree
to disagree, I can't see substantiation for the notion that Harry's
(hypothetical) possession will not include his physical~ self. 
Since you have brought up this wildly fanstastic topic (and thankyou
again!) I have been poring through canon for all the possession
related scraps that we do have. To my mind we have three *real*
possessions. All have 'some' distinct correlation, but none are
precisely the same.

The first of the three - Quirrel!Mort manifests canonically as a
second face sticking out of the back of the possessed's head. The
distinctive qualities of this one are that the POssesser was
Vapour!mort, which is not *exactly* a disembodied soul, but very much
like one with possibly a few minor additional qualities.

The second of the three - Tom!Ginny is presented as a girl who is
charmed, persuaded and eventually controlled by the combination of a
concealed fragment of memory and a disembodied/reembodied soul. We
don't see any physical anomaly to go with it, but that Ginny's body is
able to speak Parseltongue for Voldie and that the soul/memory has the
capacity to drain life from the carrier. Come to think of it the Life
drain thing is actually very consistent in the cases of possession,
Quirrel was made to drink Unicorns blood to sustain the life of him
and Voldemort, and there is also somewhere a story in the books about
Voldemort using up the life of his host animals, is there not?

The third of the three - Possessed!Harry is the most disturbing look
inside the mechanics of possession in the potterverse. It is performed
by the *whole* intact resurrected Voldemort and I found that there was
actually a veritable mass of canon on possession given to us in this
scene.  In this example the life drain is occuring again "...blinded
and dying..." but also at the moment of possession Harry '..knew he
was dead..." I can only speculate that these words refer to precisely
the moment when Harry's life is taken from him and 'becomes'
Voldemort's, IOW the instant of Voldie seizing possession of Harry's
life, in abstract it is the 'death' of Harry because "Harry" no longer
exists. Further to these things we are shown a few interesting
peripheral descriptions which I do believe we should take as measured
doses of Possession canon. Apart from the creature, coils and red
eyes, there is also the splitting apart of the headless wizard statue
and the bursting open of Harry's scar. It seems to me in this case
that we are being shown indirectly the 'physical' nature of
possession. Both times the physical thing (statue,scar) is described
as physical breaking apart. I do speculate here, but I think we are to
believe that Voldemort's possessing!intent conciousness passed
*through* the statue. 

I find myself therefore thinking that in possession (specifically done
by a full embodied being) there is 'physical' contact, well moreover,
physical force applied *to* the body of the possessed. This leads me
to be nigh convinced that physical matter is not left behind in the
act of possession. So I speculate that it is 'changed' by some guiding
principle instead. I would imagine it a waveform or something like
that carrying all the properties and source of the original
body/mind/soul and transferring them from their place into the *life*
of another being. In a sense I am imagining it as a queer twist on
apparation. 




> Carol:
> I think the key word in the possession scene in OoP is not "coil" 
> but "creature," the same word that Neri associates with Harry the 
> Horcrux. "In essence divided," as I said in another post, seems to 
> refer to Voldemort/Nagini rather than Voldemort. Or at least that's 
> how I, in my mathematically challenged way, read the scene.
>

Valky:
I do agree that creature is a key word there, but I still think that
the coils are important. I think we can abstractly match the coils of
the creature, spinning into apparition, the whirls/swirls of all the
snake imagery and even the 'graceful arc' of Sirius as he falls
through the veil to conclude that JKR does have a distinct concept of
conciousness~life~body in mind and is consistent in referring to it.
And of course my speculation which I happily glean from
mystical/mythological/mathematical concepts doesn't necessarily have
to be the right explanation. ;D I am used to the embarrasment of
putting my name to silly overly elaborate theories.

Valky










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 07:54:08 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 07:54:08 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod - Gramophone's for the Young.
In-Reply-To: <dkhcla+lm99@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkhof0+r250@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142517

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at y...> wrote:
>
> "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at w...> wrote:
>  
> > It may be a just a Flint, but, surely, so skilled a wizard as
> > Slughorn  could figure out some way to play a phonograph sans 
> > electricity?
> > 
> >   - CMC

> zgirnius:
> It is described as old-fashioned. Perhaps JKR does not mean
> 'compared to a CD player', but *really* old-fashioned. They 
> did not run off electricity back in 1901...
>

bboyminn:

Who's buttons have been punched again. 

" ...the quickly stifled sounds of an old gramophone...."

Do any of you young whipper-snappers (he said with a friendly grin)
even understand what a gramophone is? The first record players had no
electric motors or electric amplifiers, as Zginrius points out
above(thank you). They had a mechanical system that you wound up with
a crank to spin the record which was about a quarter of an inch thick
(the record), and a needle attached to a diaphram which in turn was
attached to a horn-shaped megaphone, and that's all it took to play a
record. 

"August 12, 1877, is the date popularly given for Edison's completion
of the model for the first phonograph."

As a side note: Edison's first phonographs used foil cylinders instead
of the more traditional disk shaped records that ancient dinosaurs
like myself are more familiar with.

As to my previous post to Nora about Collin's camera. I hope everyone
understands that I wasn't really criticizing Nora. Just commenting on
the commonly, and very mistakenly, held belief that a camera couldn't
possibly work without electricity. 

Yes... yes... I admitted to a snarky attitude then and I admit to it
now, but really people, despite living in the jaded digital age, is it
really that much to expect the world at large to understand the basics
of the gramophone and box camera? 

My truest apologies to Nora with my assurance that I wasn't attacking
her personally, and that I realize her reference to the camera was an
incidental and insignificantly tangental point that had nothing really
to do with her central point. If any offense was taken, then I humble
bow and apologies profusely.

Despite knowing about gramophones and box cameras, I'm not really that
old.

Steve/bboyminn






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sat Nov  5 08:02:16 2005
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 5 Nov 2005 08:02:16 -0000
Subject: Reminder - chap. disc. of HBP3 (Will and Won't) 
Message-ID: <1131177736.11.24177.m25@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142518


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

chap. disc. of HBP3 (Will and Won't) 

Date: Monday, November 7, 2005 
Time: All Day

Since the dissection of HBP ch. 3 (Will and Won't) is now in the
offing, we would like to suggest that everyone who is interested
in participating meaningfully *reread* this chapter and refresh
your memory of canon.  Look for the post from Ravenclaw Bookworm 
in the week of November 7th!  In the meantime, you are welcome 
to continue the discussion of 
HBP1
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141797)
HBP2
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142027).

To view the discussion schedule and to see which chapters still
need a discussion leader, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database
and click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. If
you'd like to take one of the available chapters, please let 
the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com

Thanks and enjoy! 

 





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 08:10:56 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:10:56 -0000
Subject: Lilly and James
In-Reply-To: <dkgm5f+b7pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkhpeg+39kr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142519

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "flyingmonkeypurple"
<tab1669 at e...> wrote:
>
> I was reading the first book again and I noticed that Hagrid 
> told Harry that both Lily and James were Head boy and Head girl
> (page 55 USA). Who would let James be Head boy? ... Any thoughts?
> 
> flyingmonkeypurple

bboyminn:

We've had Head Boy discussions before, and while all UK school systems
are different, in general, Head Boy is not King of the Prefects; it's
more like being top honor student.

Head Boy is a separate honor from Prefect, although logically many
Prefects like Percy become Head Boy. BUT you don't have to be a
Prefect to be a Head Boys, which to me makes it clear that it is
indeed a separate honor. Note that James was not a Prefect, but he was
Head Boy.

I've always equated it with Valedictorian, although that's not a
perfect model. In a sense, Head Boy is 'best boy' or 'top boy' or
'smartest most achieving boy'.  To be Head Boy, is to be honored in
your seventh year as the top student in the school. So, even if you
are a trouble maker, if you demonstrate the skill and get the top
grades, and despite your bits of trouble making, show that you are a
person with significant potential, then you are 'Head Boy'.

Prefects are chosen for responsibility. They are required to maintain
order and assist the staff. Best 'person' is an academic and general
achievement honor. 

I suspect Hermoine would be, without a doubt, Head Girl if she attends
her 7th year. But Harry's grades/marks just aren't high enough to
qualify. I suspect Ernie MacMillan has a good chance.

Also, though I'm sure others will corect me if I'm wrong, there are
two new Prefects for EACH HOUSE appointed every year, but only one
Head Boy and Head Girl for the entire school.

Hope that helps.

Steve/bboyminn








From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Nov  5 12:19:07 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:19:07 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkgmit+3o9l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dki7vr+psa6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142520

a_svirn:
> 
> What distinction? Were there any demons in the Garden of Eden?

Ceridwen:
Not that I recall from the Biblical accounts.  The serpent offers 
possibilities, but most point to him as the possessed manifestation 
of the devil.

a_svirn:
> 
> I don't know about "ordinarily", but any number of witches was 
> burned at the stake for not only touching demons, but having sexual 
> relationship with them and bearing them children.

Ceridwen:
The hysteria of the witch trials was just that.  The 'withces' burned 
at the stake in Europe, the ones who were drowned, the ones who were 
tortured to death, hung, pressed, were not witches.  We are not in 
the Potterverse.  They were people who, for some reason or another, 
were hated by enough people to be brought to 'trial' and murdered, 
for their property, or because they were busybodies or otherwise 
unpleasant neighbors.

Claims of having relations and bearing children to these disembodied 
spirits are false.  Confessions were made to make the torture stop, 
and they repeated what their torturers insisted they repeat.

The Potterverse is the creation of JKRowling.  She is a middle-aged 
woman who was born in the mid-twentieth century.  She very briefly 
mentions the 'burning times' in Europe, with reference to a witch who 
deliberately got caught because she enjoyed the tickle of the flames, 
or some such derangement.  But her world was never part of the 
shameful ignorance of the witch trials.

What those women were accused of was impossible in our world.  Many 
confessed to impossible things because they were being tortured 
beyond endurance.  Then of course they were burned at the stake 
(Europe) or hung (Colonies).  One man was pressed.  Or, should we 
accept that witches really flew naked on broomsticks as well?

Ceridwen.






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sat Nov  5 13:45:31 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 13:45:31 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius  (was Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
In-Reply-To: <dkgj61+99rq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkid1r+l03c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142521

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...> 
wrote:
<big snip> 
> One thought more: when all plotline trouble is over and supposing 
> we'll have a happy ending, how will JKR manage Sirius's being dead? 
> It is reasonable to expect Harry will miss him, in the middle of all 
> the 'Hooray the Wizarding World is saved!' festivities. Just 
> wondering.
> 
> Lucianam (obviously not happy that Sirius is dead).

Marianne: 

I'm already perturbed at JKR's management of dead Sirius. Speaking as 
someone who was a young teen when I lost my mother, the idea that 
there was no memorial service for Sirius struck me as heartless for 
the lack of support that sort service could have given to Harry, as 
well as a sign of respect for the deceased. (Attendence by Order 
members would have been voluntary, so Snape could have avoided showing 
up <g>.) Instead, Harry deals with his grief by himself at Hogwarts, 
and then shuts himself in his room at Privet Drive until DD takes him 
to the Burrow. This lack was all the more glaring to me when we were 
later treated to a funeral for Aragog.

Now, I realize there was a plot reason for Aragog's funeral.  And, 
just because we saw no memorial service for Sirius doesn't mean there 
wasn't one.  However, since JKR didn't even mention in passing that 
any sort of service was held, I'm of the opinion that there was none. 
Maybe Wizard culture says that if there's no body, there can be no 
service. If that's the case, they should rethink that, IMHO.

Towards the end of HBP Harry muses about going to see his parents' 
graves at Godric's Hollow.  My thought then was that the idea would 
occur to him to do something himself, such as place some sort of 
marker/stone for Sirius near his parents' graves. I can envision this 
happening early in Book 7, thus providing Harry with an additional 
boost in his determination to bring Voldemort down.  Or I can see this 
at the end of the series, as a way to mourn and say goodbye not only 
to Sirius, but to everyone else who was hurt by Voldemort's 
depredations.

Marianne, who's also not happy Sirius is dead.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov  5 13:57:38 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 13:57:38 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <djir78+vn71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkidoi+6u1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142522

>6 Elf-made wine 
> doesn't sound too safe either. How many stories involve some danger 
> at drinking something made by elves or fairies? These are magical 
> folk, so perhaps it's not so dangerous. Do you think this was just 
> setting the magical mood, or was JKR waving a flag?

Potioncat:
OK, OK, I can't help myself. Do you think the elves who made the wine 
are related to the Keebler elves who bake cookies? 

> 
> 7. This is a serious chapter, with lots of dark images. It's 
> informative too, but it's difficult to decide which information is 
> truth and which is deception. What images or feelings made an 
> impression on you? How do they affect your interpretation of the 
> story? 

Potioncat:
All the images just about yell "Danger, Will Robinson!" But one of 
the more obvious ones may have something else behind it, at least in 
the the allusion category. In the first place, long fingers seem to 
be a sign of magic. I think that both DD and Snape are described as 
having long fingers. Anyone else?

"...the towering mill chimney seemed to hover like a giant admonitory 
finger."

At that moment we don't yet know whose house the sisters are 
visiting. And while I'm probably taking this too far, Snape's fingers 
are often mentioned in canon. I convinced myself it would be insanity 
to look for the actual words from the books, and berated myself that 
if I were a true Snapeaholic I'd be able to cite chapter, page number 
and paragraph from memory.

But, IIRC, we have Snape circling his mouth with a long finger and 
pointing a long yellow finger at either the Trio or Draco (incident 
with teeth, I think.) So perhaps Snape smokes like a chimney and 
that's why his teeth and fingers are yellow...


Oh, and while I'm at it. Would Steve like to explain to my kids what 
a typewriter ribbon is used for?








From lealess at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 14:08:51 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:08:51 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkh8nq+simn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkiedj+nrbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142523

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> > > >>Sydney:
> > > "White Riot" seems appropriate... Holy mind-meld, Betty, I 
> > > TOTALLY see young Snape living in a Clash t-shirt!!
> > 

He may have listened to Wire, angry punk with a pristine edge
("12XU"), which became something more complex and paranoid ("I've
redefined the meaning of vendetta -- I should have known better"). 
Then, in his Death Eater days, because he couldn't help it (and
assuming he was still listening to Muggle music), he would have
listened to Joy Division ("Your dream always end, they don't rise up,
just descend").

Nowadays, he would listen to Sigur Ros, the phoenix song made real. 
He might still listen to Wire, cold, intellectual, almost-industrial
music.  If he's lucky, Marvin Gaye.

I enjoy this more than horcruxes, because... the soul isn't supposed
to die, is it?  Tearing it affects the living being, but the soul is
in some theories eternal anyway.  Maybe horcruxes just keep the soul
tied to the earth?  Aargh.

lealess







From lealess at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 14:35:58 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:35:58 -0000
Subject: War
In-Reply-To: <436AA605.8030600@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <dkig0e+83nf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142524

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin
<irene_mikhlin at b...> wrote:
>
> kaitoujuliet wrote:
> 
> >>"Ralph Miller" <papa at m...> wrote
> >>Sometimes war is not optional and it requires violent and ugly
> >>acts from moral people.
> > 
> > Wellllll...that may be true in Real Life.  But in a fictional
> > universe, war can be anything the author wants it to be.  It can 
> > be optional or not optional, just or unjust or questionable.  A  
> > fictional character *may* be able to engage in war without  
> > becoming ugly.  It's all in thespin the author gives it.
> > 
> > I humbly suggest that it would be more fruitful to ask what war 
> > means within J.K. Rowling's fictional universe, what Harry's  
> > decision means,and what the book is saying about the issues 
> > involved.
> 
> Well, in the terms of war movies it was fairly obvious to me that 
> JKR thinks more in terms of "Alexander Nevsky" than "Apocalypse Now"  
> if you see what I mean.
> 
> To go back to the original idea that the talk between Harry and 
> Dumbledore was somehow scary and immoral, that's really depends if she 
> sees the Order vs. Voldemort war as a just one, more similar to WW2 
> than to Vietnam. If she does, then I don't see how it's immoral even  
> within Christian morality.
> 

The current situation seems to consist of terrorist activities, and
not full-out, battlefield-type fighting.  On the one side, we have
murders, destruction of property, kidnapping, coercion, and the Dark
Mark left to frighten.  We have intelligence and infiltration on both
sides.  We have the Ministry arming itself, unusually and temporarily,
with the ability to use Unforgivables, or fighting bravely to bring
Death Eaters to justice.  The one battle we had was in the Ministry of
Magic and involved adult Death Eaters and children, later joined by
adult Order members.

There may be a repeat skirmish in book 7.  But the objective for
Voldemort in book 7 may simply be to "get Harry," and the situation
may otherwise remain status-quo, because how can the Ministry attack
an enemy it can't find (unless it gets helpful information from the
inside), and how can Voldemort, with relatively small numbers, launch
an attack on a prepared Ministry or Hogwarts?  Killing Harry would
send a demoralizing message to the wizarding world and would put
Voldemort in the clear.

Meanwhile, Harry will be searching for Horcruxes with the ultimate
goal of eliminating Voldemort.

In the books, we have seen families destroyed by Voldemort's
terrorism, and we have seen sacrifice in the attempt to overcome it. 
We have seen Death Eaters killed by Aurors empowered to use
Unforgivables.  But Snape's parting words included, "No Unforgivables
for you
"  Was that a taunt or a warning?

In the context of resisting a terrorist campaign, what is the moral
thing for Harry to do?  Part of it is staying on task and destroying
Horcruxes.   It is moral for him to "hunt down and punish those
responsible for these cowardly acts"  (using the U.S. president's
language after 9-11)?  How is that different from Sirius Black wanting
to kill Peter Pettigrew, which Harry prevented?  Did Dumbledore call
Voldemort "Tom" in the Ministry of Magic for no good reason?  Did he
refrain from using deadly force on Voldemort because he knew it would
be useless, or for some other reason?

What can the Ministry do in the face of terrorism?  Adopt
Umbridge-like methods?  Put people like Stan Shunpike in jail?

Looking at the context of the books, I would say that war means
terrorism in the fictional HP world, Harry's decision actually means
he is willing to sacrifice himself as others have sacrificed
themselves, and the books say the ends do not justify the means and
compassion is greater than revenge.

Whether this will hold true for book 7, who can say?  Obviously,
Voldemort's threat will have to be eliminated.  I am not sure Harry
will be the one to directly do it, however.  We already have one
candidate with a supposedly tainted soul


lealess







From ornawn at 013.net  Sat Nov  5 14:09:37 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:09:37 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End
Message-ID: <dkief1+3jdl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142525

>Potioncat:
>In the first place, long fingers seem to
>be a sign of magic. I think that both DD and Snape are described as
>having long fingers. Anyone else?

Orna:

Well, yes. The one and only Voldermort

In GoF: 
"Voldermort looked away from Harry, and began examining his own body. 
His hands were like large , pale spiders; his long white fingers 
caressed his own chest
.Voldermort slipped one of those unnaturally 
long-fingered hands into a deep pocket, and drew out a wand
"(p 559)










From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 15:19:24 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:19:24 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkh8nq+simn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkiihs+2sgb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142526

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Since I'm liking the idea of the Prince family not being very   
> > high-brow themselves, I imagine Snape being introduced to       
> > classical music by Lucius

> >>Sydney: 
> *sniffs*  Lucius is the sort of person who goes to the opera and  
> then talks through the whole thing.  He might have put music on in 
> the background to get the air of elegance, but I don't think he'd 
> shut up long enough for Snape to get the taste of it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  So maybe Slughorn, with his gramophone (thank you CMC), played 
a part in Snape's early musical education.  (And I *still* think 
students have their own way of playing music.)  Heh, maybe Lucius 
was all, "Here's who you should have in your album shelf, but dear 
God, Snape, don't *obsess* over it so".  ('Cause Snape never does 
anything by halves, and Lucius would be so *bored* if Snape was 
suddenly hanging in the music room intently listening to the "right" 
music.)  

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But I will say the idea of Hogwarts being totally without music 
> > is rather horrifying, personally. Especially when JKR appears to 
> > want to paint the WW as home to all that is creative and        
> > individual, while Muggles are more bland and generic.           
> > (Dumbledore vs. Dursley)

> >>Nora:
> 'All that is creative and individual' is a bit of an exaggeration,
> methinks.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I flip back and forth on this myself.  Because PS/SS was 
certainly about the full color of the WW versus the blandness of the 
Muggle (the Dursleys and frankly, the Grangers).  But as the books 
have progressed Hogwarts really does seem backwords when it comes to 
creativity.  (e.g. Dean's non-existent art class, no literature 
courses, no music courses, etc.)  And the MoM seems *even more* anti-
creativity.  Especially as exampled by Umbridge.

But I'm not sure if JKR means for us to see Muggles as *better* than 
wizards or not.  Because the only Muggles we know are very much not 
imaginative.  At all. 

> >>Nora:
> There's no evidence given for music education whatsoever. Now
> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's not
> encouraging to my perspective upon their musical culture, or any
> standard of musical literacy. (Which is very low at present anyways
> in the real world.)

Betsy Hp:
There's not, I agree.  (The glee club was actually a Charms club. 
*sigh*)  However, lack of musical education doesn't mean lack of 
music.  There *is* evidence that wizards listen to and enjoy music.  
Again, it'd be pretty hard for the Weird Sisters to get a following 
amongst the youth if they were never heard at Hogwarts.  Plus, not 
only does Slughorn listen to music, he must play the piano himself.  
Otherwise, why haul it around from house to house to house?

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So he kicks around the old stomping grounds (literally, 
> > one wonders?), and ooh, hey!  What's that compelling music,     
> > like all of his rage crystallized into sound?

> >>Nora:
> Snape hanging out in Muggle bars? Particularly at the time, without
> music quite as portable as it is in the present...I keep harping on
> this, but you absolutely have to have a point of dissemination for
> this stuff. That's where the problem lies.

> >>Sydney:
> As Betsy points out as well, Snape spent his summers in a muggle
> neighbourhood (probably: of course he could have been raised by the
> Pinces or something, but it's the working theory).  He couldn't   
> have avoided the boom boxes.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  I was exposed to Porta Rican music as a kid just by 
walking outside on Porta Rico day in NYC.  Music was most definitely 
portable in the late 70's early 80's.  You just had to have a 
stronger arm. <g>  (Actually, with boom boxes you'd be *more* likely 
to be exposed to different music.  Whereas portable music today is 
heard only by the guy with the earphones.)  Plus, I'd imagine there 
were one or two bands formed in Snape's old neighborhood, and I'm 
betting they weren't stealthy about their practices. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So Dumbledore will only listen to live music?
> > That seems awfully limiting for someone so musically enclined,   
> > IMO. (JKR talks about him humming to himself all the time.)

> >>Nora:
> Some people think of it as limiting, and some very influential
> theorists have thought of recording as profoundly damaging to
> classical Western musical culture. It's, ummm, complex. It's also
> so wildly OT that I'll just leave it at that. I doubt anyone wants 
> a lecture on the sociology of music. :)

Betsy Hp:
I actually read an article about that (and sort of understood it 
<g>).  But while I think Dumbledore certainly *enjoys* music, and 
probably has fond memories of the live music he heard in his youth, 
I don't think he'd decide to limit himself to *only* live music if 
other options were available.  I doubt he gets into the deeper 
theory behind musical recordings and it's affect on musical culture, 
IOW.

> >>Nora:
> Chamber music has particular connotations (especially at the      
> present) which I suspect JKR is alluding to. It's the music of the
> connoiseur, music for the person who can play it (as this is how
> people would hear chamber music, you know? 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm, I think you're giving JKR too much credit.  I think she picked 
a form of classical music that didn't sound quite as stuffy as opera 
(for example) and threw it in there because she pictures Dumbledore 
humming all the time and he's of a certain age.  The very fact that 
she *doesn't* have the students listening to music or learning music 
suggests, to me anyway, that JKR herself is not a huge musical 
person herself.  Not that she doesn't enjoy it, but that she 
wouldn't give it this level of thought.

> >>Betsy Hp
> > Surely the WW can figure out how to record and distribute music.
> > They distribute photographs and posters easily enough. Heck, they
> > record and distribute *memories* easily enough. (Wait -- pensieve
> > music recordings? hmmm.)

> >>Nora:
> Recording is not a simple thing. It changes the ontological status
> of a work of music, for one thing, but it also entails distribution
> methods and technology. It's far, far more complex than printing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but wizards are able to create a space leaping bus that 
manipulates solid non-magical objects around it.  They can make a 
car and a motorcycle fly.  I don't think they'd have to reinvent the 
wheel to play a record.  Or to create a record for that matter.  
Again, they record memories.  Recording music really wouldn't be 
that hard for them, I'd imagine.

> >>Nora is most skeptical of the cultural cross-pollination claims
> light-heartedly made in the original...

Betsy Hp:
Well, I honestly doubt Snape has an iPod.  And while I like the idea 
of Punk!Snape, there's really no hard evidence for it, so it is a 
bit of a imaginative leap on my part.  But I also doubt he has no 
idea about the Muggle world and its culture.  In this case I think 
Arthur Weasley is the exception, not the rule.  Especially when it 
comes to a half-blood.  

Betsy Hp, who thinks the WW has parasitical relationship with the 
Muggle world






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov  5 16:19:52 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:19:52 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius  (was Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
In-Reply-To: <dkid1r+l03c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkim38+suvt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142527

Marianne:
> Maybe Wizard culture says that if there's no body, there can be no 
> service. If that's the case, they should rethink that, IMHO.
> 
> Towards the end of HBP Harry muses about going to see his parents' 
> graves at Godric's Hollow.  My thought then was that the idea
> would occur to him to do something himself, such as place some
> sort of marker/stone for Sirius near his parents' graves. I can 
envision
> this happening early in Book 7, thus providing Harry with an
> additional boost in his determination to bring Voldemort down. Or I
> can see this at the end of the series, as a way to mourn and say 
> goodbye not only to Sirius, but to everyone else who was hurt by
> Voldemort's depredations.

Jen: That's a lovely thought, Marianne. I so hope you're right as 
even though Sirius might not feel he deserved to be memorialized 
with James and Lily, Harry would believe he belonged with them.

That reminds me--how did Harry suddenly know in HBP his parents had 
graves in Godric's Hollow? I don't remember anyone telling him that. 
It makes sense, but as Marianne pointed out upthread, no one seemed 
bothered to have a memorial for Sirius. Surely the WW treated James 
and Lily more respectfully, but I would have liked to have a 
character moment, when someone like Hagrid mentioned attending their 
joint funeral and that led to Harry wanting to visit their graves.

It's really interesting to me that for a series with possibly THE 
primary theme about death, according to the author, the one scene in 
a graveyard was the resurrection of a demon, including a cracked 
gravestone and the rest. I suppose Dumbledore's funeral was meant to 
be the anithesis of Voldemort's 'birth' in a way, a moment for a man 
who lived an incredibly full life and didn't use his immense power 
to try to cheat death when the end came. And I'm talking there about 
the fact Dumbledore also had a path to immortality via the stone and 
chose not to use it. At least I've always believed that was the 
point of his talk to Harry in PS, that unlike Voldemort, he made the 
choice not to fear death but consider it the natural course of 
events and to embrace it when his time came. 

But the rest of the folks who have died along the way....James and 
Lily, Cedric, Sirius....well, I was pleasantly surprised we even got 
to see Dumbledore's funeral. I do think an adult Order member may go 
with the Trio to Godric's, my choice would be Lupin for the personal 
connection to James and Lily, and Harry will learn some of the less 
plot-involved memories that way--a few moments about their life as a 
married couple, their immense love for Harry, the funeral...Sigh, I 
hope.


Jen, thinking of whatever wise person said 'funerals are for the 
living'.






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 16:36:57 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:36:57 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkiihs+2sgb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkin39+9f8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142529

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:


> But I'm not sure if JKR means for us to see Muggles as *better* 
> than wizards or not.  Because the only Muggles we know are very 
> much not imaginative.  At all. 

I'll stick with 'different'.  I'm not going to make the claim that 
JKR is presenting a dystopia in the WW but doesn't realize it, but 
she's pretty deliberate (IMO) in her omissions, in places that make 
people think "I'd ditch the magic world in a minute."

> There *is* evidence that wizards listen to and enjoy music.  
> Again, it'd be pretty hard for the Weird Sisters to get a following 
> amongst the youth if they were never heard at Hogwarts.  Plus, not 
> only does Slughorn listen to music, he must play the piano 
> himself.  Otherwise, why haul it around from house to house to 
> house?

Owning a piano then points to a music enjoyment and distribution 
model of pre-recorded times, back when people learned the hits from 
the latest opera, or the big new symphony, by playing it four-hands.  
Or maybe he's just a junk collector? :)  We *do* know there is 
wizarding radio, of course. This could be a more primary model of 
distribution of music, as it was in the early part of the 20th 
century--especially before longer playing record formats came out.  
You could listen to an entire symphony on broadcast that would take 
many 33s to fit in.

> I doubt he gets into the deeper theory behind musical recordings 
> and its affect on musical culture, IOW.

If anyone in the books is, it'd be him. :)  I don't know--he seems 
one to appreciate the difference between actual experience and frozen 
artifact representation, reality and simulacra...

> Hmmm, I think you're giving JKR too much credit.  I think she 
> picked a form of classical music that didn't sound quite as stuffy 
> as opera (for example) and threw it in there because she pictures 
> Dumbledore humming all the time and he's of a certain age.

But then it's still the appropriate music for the connotations.  
Actually a little stuffier than opera (or more, just in a different 
way), but not a social music (which opera always has been and always 
will be)...more something one does in reflection and contemplation.  
Fits his personality very well.

> Again, they record memories.  Recording music really wouldn't be 
> that hard for them, I'd imagine.

Then we get down to the issue raised; why and how would they be 
listening to all the *Muggle* music you want them to have been? :)

> But I also doubt he has no idea about the Muggle world and its 
> culture.  In this case I think Arthur Weasley is the exception, not 
> the rule.  Especially when it comes to a half-blood.  

So, what about the folks at the Quidditch World Cup who had 
absolutely no idea how to dress like Muggles?  That was quite a bit 
of them, IIRC.  Dumbledore is unique for reading Muggle newspapers, 
and caring about what goes on in their world.

A half-blood certainly would have been exposed to more things, yes; 
but then it turns into a question, with people with roots in two 
cultures, which ones they seek out and actively engage with.  If we 
have a Snape inclining away from interest in his Muggle side, as I 
think we've got it hinted at, he may spend summers somewhat around 
the culture, but I doubt he's going out and engaging with it.  I 
can't think of really *any* way or reason that Lucius Malfoy would be 
engaging with Muggle culture, and that includes classical music (and 
opera above all, given its peculiar nature).

The WW doesn't have many of the ways which music is spread in current 
society, but what they really don't have are the ways that music is 
spread to people when they're not necessarily looking for music.  TV 
is the prime culprit of this phenomena.  Otherwise, for things other 
than a fleeting exposure, you have to be looking to listen to music.

Wizarding society also doesn't have the kinds of public space 
interaction that spread music in the real world.  There's one all-
wizarding village.  The model for wizarding family homes appears to 
be *separate* from Muggle homes, to a large extent; the Burrow out in 
the countryside, the Lovegoods living somewhere not far, Grimmauld 
Place in London but not of it, the Malfoy house out in the country as 
well.  These are not people who live together, because they've solved 
the transportation issues.  Maybe JKR hasn't thought so much about 
it, but that profoundly affects most aspects of musical culture, even 
in the era of mechanical reproduction.  What it must affect, and I 
think she's shown, is their knowledge of and interest in Muggle 
culture.  It's exceptional, not normative.

-Nora wonders if Sluggy has Richard Tauber 33s in his collection, 
usable with an older gramophone where LPs wouldn't be...






From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 17:24:10 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Managing Dead Sirius  (was Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
In-Reply-To: <dkid1r+l03c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051105172410.70472.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142530



kiricat4001 <zarleycat at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...edited...
 
And, just because we saw no memorial service for Sirius doesn't mean there wasn't one.  However, since JKR didn't even mention in passing that any sort of service was held, I'm of the opinion that there was none. Maybe Wizard culture says that if there's no body, there can be no service. If that's the case, they should rethink that, IMHO.

Juli: You're right, there wasn't any funeral for Sirius, during Dumbledore's funeral, it says Harry had never been to  funeral, he was to young when his parents died, and when Sirius died there was no body therefore no funeral.
 
I do wish there had been a funeral, service or some sort of reunion to conmemorate the life of Sirius, a way to say good bye, farewell, see you soon or something. 
 
Juli


Juli
Aol: jlnbtr
Yahoo: jlnbtr



		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 17:36:37 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lilly and James
In-Reply-To: <dkgm5f+b7pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051105173637.72360.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142531



flyingmonkeypurple <tab1669 at elnet.com> wrote:
 
I was reading the first book again and I noticed that Hagrid told 
Harry that both Lily and James were Head boy and Head girl (page 55 
USA). Who would let James be Head boy? He was such a trouble maker. He did not follow the rules. Maybe as he got older he didn't get into as much trouble. Maybe it has to do with Character. Harry got to be Quidditch captain even though he has gotten in trouble a lot. Any thoughts?
 
Juli: your answer lies in OoP. After Harry dives into Snape's memory of been 'tortured' by James, he sneaks into Umbridge's office and talks to Sirius and Remus via floo powder. Sirius and Remus tried to explain Harry that James was only 15 when that happened, that he eventually grew up, that by the time he was 17, and started to date Lily he didn't curse people just for kicks, he was more mature.
 
Remember James was an exceptionally good student, he was a leader, a popular boy, quidditch star... If you take away his ability to get into trouble, he's an excelent candidate for Head Boy. James wasn't a prefect (Sirius says so in OoP) in case you're wandering, so it must mean that being a prefect isn't a requirement for becoming a Head Boy/Girl.
 
Lily on the other hand, must have been a prefect (canon anyone?) she was smart, a leader, well-behaved... and she latter on she became a Head Girl.
 
I do believe Harry will become a Head Boy, that is if he returns to Hogwarts. He may not be an O student all the way, but I think he's above average, he doesn't get into trouble so often (unless you're counting the number of times he's trying to save the world or his friends), he's well-liked...
 


Juli
Aol: jlnbtr
Yahoo: jlnbtr



		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Sat Nov  5 18:40:54 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:40:54 -0000
Subject: James Head Boy instead of Lupin WAS Re: Lilly and James
In-Reply-To: <20051105173637.72360.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkiubm+2o1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142532

 
> flyingmonkeypurple wrote:

> Who would let James be Head boy? He was such a trouble 
> maker. He did not follow the rules. Maybe as he got older he 
> didn't get into as much trouble. Maybe it has to do with 
> Character. Harry got to be Quidditch captain even though he has 
gotten in trouble a lot. Any thoughts?
>  

Lucianam:

I've also wondered about that, specially because James was NOT a 
prefect (we learn that in OotP, remember Sirius saying 'Moony was 
the 
good boy, he got the badge' and Harry was glad because 'his father 
had not been a prefect either'). I used to think one had to be a 
prefect in order to become Head Boy (like Percy).

I think a good explanation is one I read in fanfic (the Shoebox 
Project), the authors - ladyjaida and dorkorific -  had the idea 
James was made Head Boy because he saved Snape's life.

I liked that idea, it explains why Lupin wasn't made Head Boy. It'd 
be the logic thing, wouldn't it? (again if you look at Percy's 
example)

Saving Snape, James proved to be selfless and brave, and probably 
Dumbledore decided those qualities were more important than 
the 'regular' Prefect-towards-Head Boy procedures.

I wondered how Lupin felt about it. Did he resent it? Did he want to 
be Head Boy and was disappointed when James got his HB badge instead 
of him?

Lucianam








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Nov  5 20:10:18 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:10:18 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkin39+9f8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkj3ja+52id@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142533

> Owning a piano then points to a music enjoyment and distribution 
> model of pre-recorded times, back when people learned the hits from 
> the latest opera, or the big new symphony, by playing it four-hands.  
> Or maybe he's just a junk collector? :)  We *do* know there is 
> wizarding radio, of course. This could be a more primary model of 
> distribution of music, as it was in the early part of the 20th 
> century--especially before longer playing record formats came out.  
> You could listen to an entire symphony on broadcast that would take 
> many 33s to fit in.
> 
Pippin:
What about music boxes? There used to be quite elaborate ones with
interchangeable discs that played the latest tunes. 
"There was a musical box that emitted a faintly sinister, tinkling tune
when wound, and they all found themselves becoming curiously 
weak and sleepy,  until Ginny had the sense to slam the lid shut;"
--OOP ch6

Slughorn's piano might have been enchanted to play itself (I was going
to mention the harp in SS/PS but it only plays itself in the movie.)
However, Ginny's greeting card sings screechily in PoA and the
suits of armor have been enchanted to sing carols. 

It seems like the WW may be bigger on sound reproducing rather than  
recording. They also have amplification with the sonorus spell.

Also, though we haven't heard of live bands performing at places
like the Three Broomsticks, there's no reason why they couldn't.
The Veela do their dance to music at the QWC, so that's another venue.
Too bad Harry was too bewitched by the dancing to notice anything
about where the music was coming from.

Pippin






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 20:40:19 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkgji9+f1p9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051105204019.77607.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142534



Ceridwen wrote:
"LV had no body then. LV was nothing but the remnants of his soul (&spirit?) left to him after GH.  The first body we see is the ugly fetus in GoF. His essence (one of the definitions of 'being') was occupying Quirrel's body like a cheap motel.  And, he trashed the place before he left.

If LV was occupying Quirrel as body and soul, not just as essence, then what happened to the LV body after Quirrel's demise? Why couldn't he be captured?  He would have been at least as vulnerable as Fetus!Mort, probably even worse off.  If he had a body, he could have been destroyed then, before he grew stronger. But if he was merely vapor once Quirrel was dead, if his soul part was released from Quirrel's body, then it would have been both invisible, and incapable of being captured." <snip>


 

CH3ed now:

I think what was left of LV after GH (as we saw him briefly when he left Quirrell in PS/SS) was his 'home piece soul', which might be different from other soul pieces in the horcruxes (for one thing the home soul is immortal as long as there are at least one horcrux intact). LV's body was destroyed.

 

I don't know what that snakish fetus that LV was occupying in GoF was, and I wonder if the 'reborn body' from the graveyard scene is like other human bodies since LV was able to possess Harry's body at MoM. Maybe he is now something like the Nazguls from LotR? Neither living nor dead? But not exactly like them since they are invisible and needed their hoods to give them forms for people to see. That might explain how LV's body 'disappears' when he possesses others (I think LV was there at the MoM and took Bella and disapparated rather than being somewhere else. I don't recall reading anything about people not being able to apparate inside the Ministry (after all Arthur Weasley does that when he goes to work). 

 

So far it seems to me LV is about the only one that has the ability to possess other people and animals (Quirell, that snakish fetus, Nagini, Harry), while Harry could only 'get inside' LV's head. I don't know if LV was able to do that before his body died at GH. But now it seems that LV, even in his new 'body', can possess others who don't have 'connection' with him. Harry; on the other hand, can only get inside LV's head because of the scar connection. Maybe it is the multiple horcruxes effect or maybe that new body obtained in the graveyard scene was not totally equivalent of normal? 

CH3ed





		





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 21:35:59 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:35:59 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities (was:Re: Snape's Speech patterns)
In-Reply-To: <dkj3ja+52id@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkj8jv+kts8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142535


> Pippin:

> Slughorn's piano might have been enchanted to play itself (I was going
> to mention the harp in SS/PS but it only plays itself in the movie.)
> However, Ginny's greeting card sings screechily in PoA and the
> suits of armor have been enchanted to sing carols. 


Also (in the realm of pure fun speculation now), if you were very
wealthy, or worked somewhere with a long history, you could have
portraits of famous musicians.  A magical portrait of Liszt and piano
could presumably play a duet with a magical portrait of Paganini!  I
dare say Dumbledore could indulge in his love of chamber music by
playing quartets with portraits of previous headmasters of the same
tastes, supposing they had been considerately painted with their
instruments.

RE:  Snape's rock roots:  well, duh, he knows about muggle music--
isn't he the lead singer of the Nine Inch Nails  (
http://nothing.nin.net/o2.html )?

Sydney-- happy her speculations on jogging!Snape turned into such an
entertaining sideline!








From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 23:12:56 2005
From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:12:56 -0000
Subject: Vanquishing Voldemort is not destroying evil  was  Re: Harrycrux again (wa
In-Reply-To: <dkbfqa+idod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkje9o+etib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142536

Neri wrote:

>We are all sure that Voldy *will*
> be vanquished by the end of the series, but we must not be sure Harry
> will come out of it alive. 

Saraquel:
Hopelessley out of touch, I've been moving and life has been so busy 
that I haven't read the posts for ages.  On returning it seems that 
I've missed some really good threads.  I won't wade in as I'm not sure 
what has been said already, but I doubt that this has been discussed, 
so here goes.

Somewhere, I can't even remember which book it's in, DD says to Harry, 
that the fight to destroy evil is only ever temporary, that we hold it 
at bay, but it always returns. (If someone could provide canon that 
would be very helpful.)  I find it interesting that the word 
vanquished is used and not destroyed.

I haven't thought this through, but how about Nagini surviving at the 
end - the symbolism of the Snake slithering off into the Garden of 
Eden, would have a nice ring don't you think.  DD thinks that 
Voldemort has made Nagini into a horcrux, but has also warned us that 
it is dangerous to make a horcrux that can think for itself. So one 
could imagine that untimately Nagini is dominating that soul piece; 
the rest of Voldemort's soul pieces and his body is destroyed by Harry 
et al, but a piece of him is now trapped in Nagini.  I use the word 
trapped, because that soul part is not free to express itself, a sort 
of internal slave.

This is an ending which I haven't seen explored.  Where Harry 
survives, vanquishes Voldemort as we know him, but knows that evil is 
still out there.

I'm not sure at all that this would be a satisfying ending.  But that 
phrase of DD's persists in my head, and it seems very JKRish to not 
want to tie it all up in a happy ever after way.  I do think, that in 
some way she will show evil surviving at the end of the book and the 
use of the word vanquish as opposed to destroy or kill, is very 
telling IMO.

Saraquel







From darkwarrior419 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 22:54:21 2005
From: darkwarrior419 at yahoo.com (T Fontes)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius  (was Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
In-Reply-To: <dkid1r+l03c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051105225421.18586.qmail@web36109.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142537

Marianne: 

I'm already perturbed at JKR's management of dead Sirius. Speaking as 
someone who was a young teen when I lost my mother, the idea that 
there was no memorial service for Sirius struck me as heartless for 
the lack of support that sort service could have given to Harry, as 
well as a sign of respect for the deceased. 

Teresa:
I've always wanted to believe that since their was no service, Sirius isn't dead. Not likely, mind you but it help me. :)
Teresa-who is most unhappy with Sirius' death.









From easimm at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 23:55:45 2005
From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:55:45 -0000
Subject: Harry living or dying at the end ( again)  WAS: Re: Harrycrux and possession
In-Reply-To: <dkh9rh+h7ev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkjgq1+kn1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142538

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> Hi, Kathryn! I hope you will forgive me for continuing to argue for  
> the possibility of Harry's survival....
> Right, so even though I want it to happen, I believe that canon 
> leaves a possibility of that to come true. Although you could be 
> right to - I think that possibility of Harry living or dying stands 
> about 50/50 right now.
> 

Snorky writes: 

In message 122261, I mentioned a passage in PS/SS in which JKR steps
out of Harry time, and into the future. The passage is at the start of
the chapter "Through the Trapdoor".

 "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
comes to a time in which he has 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.
Considering all the other horrible things Harry has had to put up with
in his other years, it would probably be a long long while before he
has time or inclination to delve down all the way to memories of
worries in his first year. In my unprofessional opinion, he wouldn't
get around to examining his first year until several years after he
leaving school - and vanquishing LV. (Unfortunately, JKR will be done
writing about him before he gets to examine his belly button while
drinking margaritas on a warm white beach.)

-snorky






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Sun Nov  6 00:59:29 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 00:59:29 -0000
Subject: Harry living or dying at the end ( again)  WAS: Re: Harrycrux and possession
In-Reply-To: <dkjgq1+kn1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkjkhh+juvl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142539

 
> > Alla:
> >  (snipped)
(answering to Kathryn Jones) ... Although you could be 
> > right to - I think that possibility of Harry living or dying 
stands 
> > about 50/50 right now.
> > 

 
> Snorky: 
> 
"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
> comes to a time in which he has 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.

Lucianam:

I've been following the Harrycrux discussions (very interesting!!) 
and I like this 'Will Harry live or not?' spin-off a lot.

I think snorky might be on to something. Of course it could be a 
flint but what if it's not? So Harry's chances of living would be 
bigger than 50 percent, if JKR wrote that purposefully.

About Harry finding death preferable to life, even if Ginny, or Ron, 
or Hermione, or all of them died ... Wasn't the whole point of the 
mirror of Erised trying to teach Harry he should keep his focus in 
his life? Even if the most desperate desire of his heart had no 
chance whatsoever of being a part of that life? 

And also in PoA, when Lupin is teaching Harry the Patronus spell, 
Harry was torn between wishing to hear his parents' voices over and 
over and focusing on the Quidditch cup. That was quite meaningful: 
you's think his parents were more important than Quidditch, but the 
trick was to remember his parents were dead, they were not going to 
come back. And Quidditch was real.

I guess the message here is, no matter how imperfect your life is, 
it's your life and the only one you got, and you should value it 
more than memories and dreams and frustrations. So if Harry chooses 
death, even if there's a lot of loved ones beyond the veil, it'll be 
very inconsistent with most of the things he's been accomplishing. 
IMHO.

I don't mean Harry WON'T choose to die if that proves to be the only 
way to defeat Voldemort -  Dumbledore did say 'there are things 
worse than death'.  

But that sentence has two different focuses to it, I think: one, a 
choice between dying and betraying your friends, for example. Harry 
has shown himself capable, until now, of making sacrifices - I 
think, like Sirius said Peter should have, he would die rather than 
betray his friends. And a second focus, it could mean living a life 
so horrible one would wish to be dead instead. That is what I think 
is inconsistent with Harry's character. I can't imagine JKR would 
write suicidal Harry! (well, that's my opinion, anyway)

On the other hand, she could write suicidal Voldemort. After all, 
Dumbledore was speaking to Voldemort when he said 'there are worse 
things than death', possibly meaning that'll be a lesson Voldemort 
will have to learn in the future. I don't see Voldemort making any 
sacrifices and chosing an honorable death to save people's lives, as 
opposite to Harry. But I can see Voldemort suffering so much he 
would prefer to die, say, if he lost all his magical powers and were 
reduced to something like a Muggle or a squib.

Just to be fair, I'll imagine Harry in the same situation - stripped 
of all his magical powers. I don't think he'd wish to die, he's 
mature enough to understand magic isn't everything. It can't stop 
people from dying, it doesn't make sure everyone likes you, and so 
on.

Hey! Anyone thinks that'd be a possible ending to the series, Harry 
being deprived of all his magical powers because he loses his scar? 
Could ALL Harry's magical powers have been passed on to him by 
Voldemort when he AK'ed him as a baby? That'd mean Harry is a squib, 
ha ha ha. Crazy. 

Lucianam









From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  6 01:19:39 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 17:19:39 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry living or dying at the end ( again)  WAS: Re: Harrycrux and possession
In-Reply-To: <dkjkhh+juvl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a501c5e270$297fe7f0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142540

Lucianam
I can't imagine JKR would 
write suicidal Harry! (well, that's my opinion, anyway)


Sherry now:
i hope that she does not write Harry choosing to die in any way.  With the
frightening percentages of teenage suicide, I'd be upset to have suicide
presented as a viable or even a good option.  Kids need to have hope.  well,
don't we all?  Yes, I can see Harry dying to save others, but never dying
just because life is too hard.  He's not the type to give up like that.  But
then, I do not want Harry to die for any reason.  If he does, all the wonder
and hope in the books would be wiped out.  


Lucianam
Hey! Anyone thinks that'd be a possible ending to the series, Harry 
being deprived of all his magical powers because he loses his scar? 
Could ALL Harry's magical powers have been passed on to him by 
Voldemort when he AK'ed him as a baby? That'd mean Harry is a squib, 
ha ha ha. Crazy. 

Lucianam



Sherry now:
I don't have access to my braille books now, so I can't find the reference,
but doesn't the first book say that Harry's name has been written down since
he was born?  Aren't we told that whenever a magical child is born, it's
name gets written in a special book in Hogwarts?  If I'm right, then it's
obvious that Harry was born with magic, that not all of his powers come from
his connection with Voldemort.  In fact, I believe Dumbledore says that
*some* of Harry's powers come from Voldemort.

Sherry




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Nov  6 01:32:14 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 01:32:14 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius  (was Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP)
In-Reply-To: <20051105172410.70472.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkjmeu+g52q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142541

 
> Juli: You're right, there wasn't any funeral for Sirius, during 
Dumbledore's funeral, it says Harry had never been to  funeral, he 
was to young when his parents died, and when Sirius died there was no 
body therefore no funeral.
>  
> I do wish there had been a funeral, service or some sort of reunion 
to conmemorate the life of Sirius, a way to say good bye, farewell, 
see you soon or something. 

Potioncat:
It seems odd that if JKR likes Sirius so much, and he's so important 
to Harry, that there wasn't a service. JKR covers the will and 
transfer of the house in a few short paragraphs. I think that with 
DD's funeral coming up, she didn't want to slow down the story with 
another funeral. But it's sort of jarring to have...nothing.

On the other hand, who would have planned one? And would the Black 
family have insisted a wake be held at 12 GP?















From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 02:02:51 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 02:02:51 -0000
Subject: Bits and pieces
Message-ID: <dkjo8b+8lb2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142542

Sydney wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142512
> As Betsy points out as well, Snape spent his summers in a muggle
neighbourhood (probably: of course he could have been raised by the
Pinces or something, but it's the working theory).  He couldn't have
avoided the boom boxes. 

Carol responds:
I do think he lived with the Princes, actually, but supposing that he
did live in Tobias's Muggle neighborhood, he would not have needed to
wait till the era of boom boxes to hear the Muggle teenagers' music.
Doesn't anyone besides me remember transistor radios? They were around
throughout the 60s (Snape's childhood) and well into the 70s and were
a lot more portable than boom boxes. (I'm imagining little Severus at
about age nine listening to Simon and Garfunkes: "Hello Darkness, my
old friend. . . .")

Marianne wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142537
> >I'm already perturbed at JKR's management of dead Sirius. Speaking
as someone who was a young teen when I lost my mother, the idea that
there was no memorial service for Sirius struck me as heartless for
the lack of support that sort service could have given to Harry, as
well as a sign of respect for the deceased.

Teresa responded:
> I've always wanted to believe that since their was no service,
Sirius isn't dead. Not likely, mind you but it help me. :)
Teresa-who is most unhappy with Sirius' death.

Carol notes:
I think the fact that Kreacher has to do what Harry orders indicates
not only that Sirius's will is valid but that he is truly dead. (But
see our possession thread for ideas on how Harry could see Sirius
beyond the Veil and bring his body back for a proper burial and
memorial service--rather like what he did for Cedric. More people
would attend the service now that Sirius's name has been cleared, if
that's any comfort. It wouldn't have to be a hasty, secret affair, as
it probably would have been while he was still thought to be a murderer.

Saraquel wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142536
<snip> Somewhere, I can't even remember which book it's in, DD says to
Harry, that the fight to destroy evil is only ever temporary, that we
hold it at bay, but it always returns. (If someone could provide canon
that would be very helpful.) I find it interesting that the word
vanquished is used and not destroyed. <snip>

Carol responds:
I don't remember Dumbledore making that remark, but Snape says
something similar in HBP, although he's speaking specifically about
the Dark Arts rather than evil in general: "The Dark Arts are many,
varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a
many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a
head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that
which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible" (177 Am. ed.). (The Hydra,
Valky?) This may not be the passage you're thinking of since it
doesn't contain the word "vanquished," but it certainly indicates that
evil, at least in this specific form, can't be permanently defeated. I
have a vague recollection of *Gandalf* saying something about evil
never being completely vanquished--something about the Shadow always
taking another form and returning, but I don't recall DD saying
anything of the sort.

Carol, with apologies for combining unrelated messages, but I didn't
want to use up all my posts for the evening quite yet!









From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 00:15:05 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 16:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <dkief1+3jdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051106001505.49294.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142543

Potioncat wrote:
"In the first place, long fingers seem to be a sign of magic. I think that both DD and Snape are described as having long fingers. Anyone else?"

CH3ed:
Lord Voldemort...and Ollivander (who also has unblinking eyes like Luna does that seem to make Harry uncomfortable). 

		
CH3ed.





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  6 03:38:00 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:38:00 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <20051105204019.77607.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkjtqo+t0cm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142544

> Ceridwen wrote:
> "LV had no body then. LV was nothing but the remnants of his soul
> (&spirit?) left to him after GH.  The first body we see is the
> ugly fetus in GoF. His essence (one of the definitions of 'being')
> was occupying Quirrel's body like a cheap motel.  And, he trashed
> the place before he left.

> CH3ed now:
<snip>
> I don't know what that snakish fetus that LV was occupying in GoF
> was, and I wonder if the 'reborn body' from the graveyard scene is
> like other human bodies since LV was able to possess Harry's body
> at MoM. Maybe he is now something like the Nazguls from LotR?
> Neither living nor dead? <snip> That might explain how LV's
> body 'disappears' when he possesses others <snip> So far it seems
> to me LV is about the only one that has the ability to possess
> other people and animals (Quirell, that snakish fetus, Nagini,
> Harry), while Harry could only 'get inside' LV's head. 

Jen: This is such an interesting thought. My guess to JKR's pre-HBP 
question of "why didn't Voldemort die at GH?" was that Voldemort was 
souless. Well, we found out that's not the correct, but I do think 
there's something different about his new body. Here's a mysterious 
thought from JKR right after HBP (TLC/MN interviews):

JKR: "I feel that I could justify every single piece of morbid 
imagery in those books. The one that I wondered whether I was going 
to be able to get past the editors was the physical condition of 
Voldemort before he went into the cauldron, do you remember? He was 
kind of fetal. I felt an almost visceral distaste for what I had 
conjured up, but there's a reason it was in there and you will see 
that."

Hmmm. So there was a *reason* for the fetal Voldemort, something 
important to the story. Several things come immediately to mind. 
Since the fetal LV was brought to life using unicorn blood, the base 
body used for his rebirth is 'cursed'. Another thought, remembering 
the bell jar in the DOM--will Voldemort be returning to his infancy? 
Will the way Harry 'vanquishes' him return him to an infant state to 
take another shot at making better choices? ;) OK, that's a bit 
toungue-in-cheek, but the mechanism is in place for that, and the 
canon, as we saw with baby-head DE. Anyone else want to take a stab 
at what JKR meant? I'm extremely curious now.

CH3ed:
> I don't know if LV was able to do that before his body died at GH.
> But now it seems that LV, even in his new 'body', can possess
> others who don't have 'connection' with him. Harry; on the other 
> hand, can only get inside LV's head because of the scar
> connection. Maybe it is the multiple horcruxes effect or maybe
> that new body obtained in the graveyard scene was not totally
> equivalent of normal? 

Jen:
I believe Voldemort could possess people prior to his bodily death 
because of this statement: "Only one power remained to me. I could 
possess the bodies of others." (chap. 33, p. 653, GOF, Scholastic) 
He could have meant "only one power of all the known magical powers 
remained" but still, he's verifying that a wizard or witch can have 
the magical power to possess someone. 

I'm not sure what you meant about LV possessing others besides Harry 
since the return to body form--we haven't seen him possess anyone 
else, have we? All other possessions were in his spirit form.








From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov  6 03:49:55 2005
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:49:55 -0000
Subject: MrsBlack/BlackHouse/Sociopath/Dementors/HogwartsExpress/Sirius/Music/Lupin
Message-ID: <dkjuh3+fnjs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142545

Jen Reese wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142308 :

<< Also, Mrs. Black knowing Riddle from her school days is 
plausible, but locating the orphange where he returned in the 
summers and locating Muggle staff who knew him 40 years afterward
seems unlikely. >>

The young Tom Riddle was an exceptionally charming boy. Maybe the
future Mrs Black (I like to think she was Miss Black) was one of the
'useful friends' he collected in Slytherin House (I'm sure Lucius
Malfoy's father was another). Maybe he told her where the orphanage
was so she could visit him during the summer; maybe he bragged to her
about whatever he did to those children and even took her to see the
cave where he did it. 

I don't think she has any role in the plot beyond what we saw in OoP,
but if she did, if she was in school with TMR, if he was horny was
well as charming and she was pretty as well as domineering, she might
have been his girlfiend, and might have been closer than any of his
other useful friends.

Steve bboyminn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142311 :

<< All those years that Black house sat empty, who paid the property
taxes on it? I seriously doubt that the Tax Office just magically
forgot about the taxes on a substantial townhome, or that the Tax
office magically forgot that a several hundred year old parcel of 
land even existed. >>

This is a forbidden 'I disagree' post. I mean, I think the tax office,
office of deeds and titles, etc, DID just magically forget about it.

Jaimee wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142315 :

<< If Voldemort was 'born' a sociopath and simply unable to have any
remorse for his actions, does he then not have any responsibility for
the horrible things he has done? >>

Even if he is unable to feel any remorse, he IS intellectually aware
that the things he has done are horrible (he brags about it). 

colebiancardi wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142328 :

<< As far as Lord Voldemort using such "unreliable allies", well,
aren't all of his allies unreliable? You can't trust evil, which is
why Dumbledore doesn't believe the MoM should use dementors to guard
Azkaban - DD doesn't believe the MoM has control over them, >>

Um. I thought DD didn't believe that Dementors should guard Azkaban
because being surrounded by Dementors is 'cruel and unusual'
punishment even for murderers and torturers.

colebiancardi wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142337 :

<< The train seems to be school property, no? It is called the
Hogwarts Express. >>

Only JKR knows how these things are handled in the wizarding world,
but in the Muggle world, schools do not own trains just because there
is a 'school train' to bring students at the beginning of term. The
school might charter the train from the railway company, or the
railway company might just put on the extra train because its knows 
it will have the extra passengers. I remember when I lived in New
York, there were a lot of extra trains on the D line on nights when
the Yankees had a home game, and George Steinbrenner does not actually
own NYCTA.

Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142362 :

<< I might have found the excuse of "keeping Sirius safe" to be more
convincing, IF we did not see that at the end of GoF Dumbledore sends
Sirius off to alert "old crowd". >>

It just occurred to me, now that we know that the Order communicates
via Patronus, why did DD send Sirius as messenger instead of his Patronus?

Carol wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142395 :

<< In any case, living at 12 GP is his decision. He still has
Buckbeak. He could fly back to his tropical paradise at any point. >>

It just occurred to me, what about Kreachur? Only Sirius has the 
power to control him (until Sirius dies, then only Harry has the 
power to control him). He hates the Order, loves Narcissa and
Bellatrix, wants to tell Narcissa everything he's learned about the
Order that could be used to harm them. Does the spell that enslaves
House Elves allow complicated commands like 'obey Mr Weasley as you
would obey me'? I mean, was Sirius supposed to stay on site to 
protect the Order from Kreachur? (I hope not, as he didn't do a very
good job of it.)

Expectopatronnie wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142490 :

<< OTOH, nobody broke from Azkaban before Sirius did, right ? ;) >>

Barty Crouch.

Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142495 :

<< We have Wizarding Wireless, but we've never seen evidence of 
any of those at Hogwarts. No mention of them in the dormitories, 
for sure. >>

I absolutely cannot comprehend how the Quidditch fans SURVIVE 
without being able to hear their favorite team's matches on 
Wizarding Wireless. Anyway, why doesn't Harry subscribe to QUIDDITCH
ILLUSTRATED where the photos would be like movies of all the past
week's matches?

<< Muggle technology doesn't work at Hogwarts either (camera FLINTs
aside and all of that), so no LP listening for the Muggleborns at
Hogwarts. No evidence of music education, that's for sure. >>

I'd like to believe that the wizarding folk have no way of recording
sound (except when in the Muggle world, of course), so they are 
forced to depend on live performances for their music. Since I think
they have a small population (20,000 wizarding folk in UK) and a
relatively large number of professional musicians, that wouldn't
really be difficult; every wizarding pub and coffee shop could have
live music, and every dinner party also, and if they borrow a
1000-seat hall (not that large by Muggle standards) every witch and
wizard in Britain could hear Celestina Warbeck in a measly 20 shows!

But the Weird Sisters have to have fans who are not aged between 11
and 18, or else they have to make their entire living during school
holidays, unless they give concerts at schools during term (and JKR
claims that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in Britain).

But alas for my beautiful theories, QTTA says (p.36) that Puddlemere
United's 'team anthem "Beat Back Those Bludgers, Boys, and Chuck 
That Quaffle Here" was recently recorded by the singing sorceress
Celestina Warbeck'.

Lucianam wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142532 :

<< I wondered how Lupin felt about it. Did he resent it? Did he want
to be Head Boy and was disappointed when James got his HB badge
instead of him? >>

I feel that Lupin didn't want to be Head Boy, at least when he 
thought about it, because the higher position he is in, the more
people observe him, the more chance that someone will figure out the
timing of his absences and whatever other clues and tell about his
furry little problem.







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sun Nov  6 03:56:00 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:56:00 -0000
Subject: Indestructible evil - Re: Bits and pieces
In-Reply-To: <dkjo8b+8lb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkjusg+e1d0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142546


> Saraquel wrote:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142536
> <snip> Somewhere, I can't even remember which book it's in, DD says 
> to Harry, that the fight to destroy evil is only ever temporary, 
> that we hold it at bay, but it always returns. (If someone could 
> provide canon that would be very helpful.) I find it interesting 
> that the word vanquished is used and not destroyed. <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't remember Dumbledore making that remark, but Snape says
> something similar in HBP, 


Valky:
I could be quite mistaken but the remark you are referring to could be
this in Book one, when DD is chatting with the recovering Harry in the
hospital wing. Harry asks Dumbledore if Voldemort will come back
saying 'I mean, he hasn't gone, has he?" and Dumbledore replies -

'No Harry, he has not. He is still out there somewhere, perhaps
looking for another body to share ... not being truly alive, he cannot
be killed.' ........ ' Nevertheless, Harry, while you may have only
delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is
prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time ~ and if he is
delayed again and again, why, he may never return to power.'

I recalled it to be less specific than this, but now I have reread, I
think that perhaps my recollection of the same said generally about
all evil, by Dumbledore, is probably movie contamination. I can't
check unfortunately as I don't own the PS film (for shame! ;D)


Carol:
> although he's speaking specifically about
> the Dark Arts rather than evil in general: "The Dark Arts are many,
> varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a
> many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a
> head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that
> which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible" (177 Am. ed.). (The 
> Hydra, Valky?) 


Valky:
Absolutely Carol! I see foreshadowing here of the first Horcrux that
Harry will take on in Book seven, I am sure of it. :D

Valky
who thinks that the 'hydra' Horcrux will be in London, Luna will tip
Hermione off to the location during the wedding by mentioning some
conspiracy theory about the wandmaker Ollivander, and that Peter will
help Harry to defeat it (thereby paying his life debt).. all purely
speculative, but that's my guess in a nutshell.

  







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov  6 03:30:16 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:30:16 -0000
Subject: Love, not a spy, the key (was Re: Debatable ethical issues)
In-Reply-To: <dkgs8b+o9j3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkjtc8+443t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142547



Pippin:

> Why can't it be both? Sure, Slytherins need to acknowledge the 
power of
> love. But we saw what an absolute botch Sirius made of the seekrit-
keeper
> switch. He could have used a little Snakey advice. 
> 

Now Lupinlore:

I tend to agree strongly with Nora on this one.  However, the fact is 
that how you come down on this one depends on what you would find 
believable or unbelievable, good writing or bad.

The emphasis on love seems to me to be the dominant theme of the 
series, and it would be unimaginable that this will not be the key to 
the whole outcome.  Like Nora, I think this will be the downfall of 
Voldemort, not a spy or a plot of Dumbledore's.  I also tend to think 
that love, or lack thereof, will also be the final word in the 
character arcs of Draco, Peter, and Snape.  Any plot twists or last 
minute revelations of the type often proposed would tend to detract 
from that emphasis, and threaten dangerously to undermine the series 
as Harry's story.  This is one reason I think OFH!Snape (or, perhaps, 
a fallen DDM!Snape) is the best literary device, as it allows the 
most leeway for the power of love to make itself felt in a way that 
keeps the focus firmly on Harry (i.e. not threatening to make Snape 
the hero of the series) while bringing Snape's character arc to a 
relatively neat end.

As for the details of who did what to whom, well I will probably give 
myself a hernia laughing in derision if JKR pulls some contrived and 
unbelievable twist to get Snape into the clear and/or to emphasize 
some kind of spy plot cooked up by Snape and Dumbledore.  
Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised to need hernia repair after 
JKR's incredibly poor performance in sweeping most of OOTP's themes 
firmly under the rug.  


Lupinlore











From bartl at sprynet.com  Sun Nov  6 03:01:26 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:01:26 -0500
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dki7vr+psa6@eGroups.com>
References: <dki7vr+psa6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <436D7206.7030000@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142548

(note to moderator: hope I did this OK; it's my first post)

Ceridwen wrote:
> a_svirn:
>>What distinction? Were there any demons in the Garden of Eden?
>
> Ceridwen:
> Not that I recall from the Biblical accounts.  The serpent 
> offers possibilities, but most point to him as the possessed 
> manifestation of the devil.

Bart:
Only from a Christian point of view; the concept of a "devil" in 
Judaism didn't come until the days of the Persian empire, and 
even then it was as a faithful servant of God.

> a_svirn:
>>I don't know about "ordinarily", but any number of witches was 
>>burned at the stake for not only touching demons, but having 
>>sexual relationship with them and bearing them children.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> The hysteria of the witch trials was just that.  The 'withces' 
> burned at the stake in Europe, the ones who were drowned, the 
> ones who were tortured to death, hung, pressed, were not witches. 
> We are not in the Potterverse.  They were people who, for some 
> reason or another, were hated by enough people to be brought 
> to 'trial' and murdered, for their property, or because they 
> were busybodies or otherwise unpleasant neighbors.

Bart:
Note that in most Christian theologies (with the most notable 
exceptions being Gnosticism and polytheistic Christianity like 
Voodoo and Santeria), all supernatural power that does not come 
directly from God comes from Satan. Therefore, anybody who 
exhibits power that did not come from some Official Source(tm) 
was, de facto, serving Satan. 
Virtually all the Christian leaders I know of realize that, in 
the Harry Potter books, magic is not supernatural but natural, 
and they have a strong moral message that is in agreement with 
most forms of Christianity.

> Ceridwen:
> What those women were accused of was impossible in our world.  
> Many confessed to impossible things because they were being 
> tortured beyond endurance.  Then of course they were burned at 
> the stake (Europe) or hung (Colonies).  One man was pressed.  
> Or, should we accept that witches really flew naked on 
> broomsticks as well?

Bart:
According to Norse scholar, Dr. Jane Sibley, one source of this 
is the goddess Freya's distaff (a long stick used to hold wool 
for spinning, and looks kind of like an upside-down broom), which 
she used for flying. 
Also according to a physician acquaintance who has done research 
on ancient herbology, distaffs and broomsticks were used by women 
for self-administering psychoactive substances (if you can't 
figure out how, then you probably shouldn't be told).

	Bart Lidofsky






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Sun Nov  6 13:26:36 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:26:36 -0000
Subject: Harry living or dying at the end ( again)  WAS: Re: Harrycrux and possession
In-Reply-To: <00a501c5e270$297fe7f0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dkl0ac+q5s4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142550

Sherry:
> I don't have access to my braille books now, so I can't find the 
reference,
> but doesn't the first book say that Harry's name has been written 
down since
> he was born?  Aren't we told that whenever a magical child is 
born, it's
> name gets written in a special book in Hogwarts?  If I'm right, 
then it's
> obvious that Harry was born with magic, that not all of his powers 
come from
> his connection with Voldemort.  In fact, I believe Dumbledore says 
that
> *some* of Harry's powers come from Voldemort.
> 

Yes, I remember the special book (parchment) too. JKR mentioned it 
in a interview:

'In Hogwarts there's a magical quill which detects the birth of a 
magical child, and writes his or her name down in a large parchment 
book. Every year Professor McGonagall checks the book, and sends 
owls to the people who are turning 11.' 

But I suppose the quill, being a magical object, would behave just 
like the Goblet of Fire. The goblet wasn't able to reason or 
remember there were only 3 schools competing, and that allowed Barty 
Jr. to fool him. Well, the quill's job is to detect the birth of a 
magical child. That quill being at Hogwarts, I don't suppose it has 
access to delivery rooms all over Britain so it could see if the 
baby is magical; it's more likely the quill's been bewitched to 
sense a new magical person 'showing up' in the world. Similarly to 
underage magic performed in a household: nobody actually goes there 
and see who's done it, the magic is 'sensed' and they know there's 
an underage wizard there, so they add two and two.

What I mean is the quill could have been fooled when Voldemort gave 
Harry powers. Supposing Harry was born a squib (ouch!!), he had not 
been detected by the quill until then; but when he got his scar the 
quill automatically sensed a magical baby had 'shown up' and wrote 
his name down. Of course there's a major problem with this idea 
(besides Harry being a squib): why did Harry get his letter when he 
was 11 and not when he was 12, then, if his register happened 
approximately one year after his birth? Unfortunately (I don't like 
a squib!Harry scenario) I can think a possibility.

The quill's to blame again: upon detecting Harry as a magical baby, 
by default it could have done exactly what it was supposed to do: it 
registered his birth. So the quill didn't write down Harry's name as 
being born on the night Voldemort attacked, but a few lines up in 
that big roll of parchment, on Harry's real birthday. Obviously the 
difference between the dates would have made sense to a person, but 
perhaps it didn't matter to quill.

In her website JKR also said, in the FAQ section, that every child 
who shows signs of magic before the age of 11 automatically gains a 
place at Hogwarts. I don't know why she didn't mention the quill 
again (that inteview was given in 2000). Maybe it's a flint? Or is 
she allowing for the possibility of the quill no being infallible?

Lucianam
 











From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  6 16:20:25 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:20:25 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry living or dying at the end ( again)  WAS: Re: Harrycrux and possession
In-Reply-To: <dkl0ac+q5s4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c5e2ed$ff817d50$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142551



Sherry:
> I don't have access to my braille books now, so I can't find the 
reference,
> but doesn't the first book say that Harry's name has been written 
down since
> he was born?  Aren't we told that whenever a magical child is 
born, it's
> name gets written in a special book in Hogwarts?  If I'm right, 
then it's
> obvious that Harry was born with magic, that not all of his powers 
come from
> his connection with Voldemort.  In fact, I believe Dumbledore says 
that
> *some* of Harry's powers come from Voldemort.
> 


me again, answering myself:
i believe also that in SS/PS, in the chapter Keeper of the keys, that Hagrid
says that Harry's name has been written down since he was born.  And Hagrid,
Dumbledore and McGonigal were all there at Privet Drive on the night Harry
was left with the Dursleys.  I'm confident that Harry was born a magical
child and only some of his powers came from Voldemort.

Sherry, wondering if it's as bad to answer your own email as to talk to
yourself?





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  6 16:38:06 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:38:06 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dkgr1o+7oc8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dklbhe+b9rm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142552

Ceridwen:
> While non-corporeal possession leaves too many unanswered questions
>(such as the problem of what Voldemort did with his body while he
> was in Harry, which is a decent-sized problem), I still have to
> disagree.

Steve:
> Let me point out certain phrases that seem to re-enforce my
> personal position of physical possession. Though, I admit they
> don't really /prove/ anything. "...locked in the coils of a
> creature..., so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his
> body ended and the creature's began. They were fused together..."
> 
> Again, that sounds pretty physical to me; locked together, tightly
> bound, can't tell where one begins and the other ends, fused
> together. 


Jen: I'm just getting caught up on all the possession posts and 
wanted to add a couple of thoughts on bodily vs. spirit possession. 
For one thing, I noticed this quote:

"Harry opened his eyes, saw his glasses lying at the heel of the 
headless statue that had been guarding him, but which now lay flat 
on its back, cracked and immobile." (chap. 36, p. 816, Scholastic)

Although I initially read the possession scene as Steve did, a body 
and spirit possession, I think a case can be made that Voldemort 
entered the statue come-to-life, then possessed Harry in spirit. It 
would happen simultaneously and Dumbledore was watching Harry 
intently, as he undoubtedly was writhing in pain. I just found the 
imagery of the statue lying 'cracked and immobile' as similar to 
what happened to creatures and to Quirrell when Voldemort left their 
bodies.

Also, undoubtedly Voldemort expected Dumbledore would act as 'fools 
who love' act and *not* kill Harry when he entered him. But 
Voldemort wouldn't take any chances, would he? If he was intending 
to kill Harry by possessing him until he died, or killing him as he 
left his body, he was taking a very big risk that Dumbledore would 
stand by and watch that process and do nothing. If Voldemort's 
spirit only was inside Harry, and his body hidden, there was a 
smaller risk. 

One last thought on Harry having the power of possession: "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--or kill them--" (chap. 37, p. 843, Scholastic) 

Dumbledore goes on to talk about the power Harry possesses 'in such 
quantities'...I don't know, makes me wonder if there really is more 
to it. No power of possession, no Harrycrux, just the unexplained 
power transfer at GH, and Voldemort handing Harry weapons to bring 
about his own demise. The core of the story is Love made manifest in 
powerful magic, such as that residing in Harry's skin, or when Harry 
feels James alive inside him and calls forth the stag patronus, or 
when Harry gains courage from the phoenix song because he is 'pure 
of heart'. I love this theory you guys put together, particularly 
Steve and Valky, I just wonder sometimes...

Jen







From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov  6 18:02:06 2005
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 6 Nov 2005 18:02:06 -0000
Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat 
Message-ID: <1131300126.215.12070.m32@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142553


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Weekly Chat 

Date: Sunday, November 6, 2005 
Time: 1:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) 

Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7
pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer
Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as
long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat"
in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to
http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of
the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room,
type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If
you have any trouble, let the elves know: 
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 

Hope to see you there! 

 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 19:06:48 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:06:48 -0000
Subject: The Iron Fist of Will - body/body or body/spirit
In-Reply-To: <dki7vr+psa6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dklk88+ss4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142554


> a_svirn:
> > 
> > What distinction? Were there any demons in the Garden of Eden?
> 
> Ceridwen:
> Not that I recall from the Biblical accounts.  The serpent offers 
> possibilities, but most point to him as the possessed 
manifestation 
> of the devil.
> 

a_svirn now:
Here we go then. The Serpent did have a body, didn't he? That of a 
serpent at least.

> Ceridwen:

> Claims of having relations and bearing children to these 
disembodied 
> spirits are false.  Confessions were made to make the torture 
stop, 
> and they repeated what their torturers insisted they repeat.
> 


a_svirn:
Oh, they never claimed to have consorted with *disembodied spirits*. 
On the contrary they gave a very detailed account of their bodies 
and especially genitalia. And since they were ? as you very justly 
pointed out ? made to repeat these claims, I'd say that predominant 
and OFFICIAL view on demons and even on the Devil was that they were 
corporeal beings (at least occasionaly). 







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 19:24:57 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:24:57 -0000
Subject: Lilly and James - Harry as Head Boy
In-Reply-To: <20051105173637.72360.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dklla9+auag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142555

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli <jlnbtr at y...> wrote:
> Juli: 
> I do believe Harry will become a Head Boy, that is if he returns
> to Hogwarts. He may not be an O student all the way, but I think
> he's above average, he doesn't get into trouble so often (unless 
> you're counting the number of times he's trying to save the world
> or his friends), he's well-liked...
> 
> Juli

bboyminn:

I don't agree with Harry becoming Head Boy, but I will make one
important point to consider while others ponder the possibility.

Harry, to become Head Boy, doesn't have to be the best there is, he
doesn't have to be as brilliant as James or Sirius. He only has to be
the best /in his year/. Of the boys we see, none of them are exactly
what I would call brilliant in any sense; smart-yes, brilliant-no. But
I do feel that perhaps Ernie Macmillan, has more or better OWLs than
Harry.

Still, as I tried to point out before, while 'Head Boy' is an academic
honor like valedictorian, I don't think it is limited to purely
academic standards. While Harry's grades are only above average, he
has proven himself to have outstanding character and courage, and I
suspect that will/should count for something. 

I guess what I'm saying is that there is /some/ possibility for Harry
to be named Head Boy, but I think there are other male students with
better academic records than Harry. So, while it could go either way,
I would say the scales at the moment are weighing against him.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Nov  6 21:10:24 2005
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:10:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: MrsBlack/BlackHouse/Sociopath/Dementors/HogwartsExpress/Sirius/Music/Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dkjuh3+fnjs@eGroups.com>
References: <dkjuh3+fnjs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40511061310y4f0b6318xf3256cc0d7df2da9@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142557

Expectopatronnie wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group
/HPforGrownups/message/142490<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142490>:

<< OTOH, nobody broke from Azkaban before Sirius did, right ? ;) >>

Catlady answered:
Barty Crouch.
 Kemper clarifies:
Sirius broke out of Azkaban; Barty Crouch Jr was sprung from Azkaban. Both
escaped from Azkaban.
 -Kemper


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 22:20:36 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:20:36 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkin39+9f8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dklvjk+7vpu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142558

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Again, they record memories.  Recording music really wouldn't be 
> > that hard for them, I'd imagine.

> >>Nora: 
> Then we get down to the issue raised; why and how would they be 
> listening to all the *Muggle* music you want them to have been? :)

Betsy Hp:
For exactly the reason you've raised.  The WW is not a culture that 
encourages artistic creativity.  They're a tiny little population 
with one school, and that school doesn't teach music. (Or theater or 
art or literature...)  So if a wizard is into chamber music, he'll 
have to look beyond the WW to find his fix.

It goes back to the WW as parasite to the Muggle world, I think.  
They play the piano (not invented by a wizard).  They listen to 
gramophones (not invented by a wizard) or music boxes (not invented 
by a wizard) or the wireless (not invented by a wizard).  They take 
pictures using a camera (not invented by a wizard).  They drive 
around in cars and buses (not invented by wizards).  They have an 
elevator at the MoM (not invented by a wizard).  It's important to 
note, I think, that all of these cunning gadgets were invented 
*after* wizards and witches went into deep hiding.   

Also, the forms of music they listen to (a torch singer, a rock 
group, chamber music) were all formed by specific and logical 
progressions of Muggle culture.  A culture the WW purportes to have 
no part of.

Their books are printed in enough of a mass production that the 
price of books is not outrageous.  Harry's not always the most 
observent narrator, but I think if he was wiping his ass with 
something that wasn't toilet paper, we'd have heard about it.  Which 
means that the WW has a cheap and steady supply of paper products.  
Where do they get their oranges or wool or cotton or cardboard 
boxes?  There's not been a single mention of a wizard factory.  
Hogwarts teaches no sort of economic or managerial course.  All of 
the stores and resaurants we've seen have been cottage industries.  
The Weasley twins, with their second store, are the closest we've 
seen of a chain, IIRC.

Why does Gringotts allow for Muggle money exchange?  Because wizards 
*must* interact with the Muggle world.  They don't do it easily.  
The fear of discovery is too great.  But some wizards and witches 
probably do it often.  Kingsley had the knowledge and wherewithal to 
blend so successfully into the Prime Minister's office it came as a 
shock to the Minister when he was revealed as a wizard.  So I'm 
doubting he showed up to work in a nightgown.

For every wizard comfortably tucked away from the Muggle world, 
there must be another wizard out there buying up large supplies of 
paper goods, textiles, produce, etc. with which to keep the WW 
businesses and homes running.

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> I can't think of really *any* way or reason that Lucius Malfoy    
> would be engaging with Muggle culture, and that includes classical 
> music (and opera above all, given its peculiar nature).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
As JKR has shown us with the House of Black, not even the pure 
bloods are really pure.  It's all image.  So maybe, once upon a 
time, an enterprising young witch bought up Muggle musical 
recordings or sheet music, gave them a wizarding twist, and sold 
them as her own creation.  (Or maybe she snuck into some 
performances with magical recording gear -- the WW as bootleggers 
<g>.)

Or maybe it's like music and culture in the USA a while ago, where a 
white audience listened to black performers in a hotel the 
performers were not allowed to stay in.

But the very fact that Dumbledore is noted as being fond of chamber 
music on his Chocolate Frog card, and the fact that chamber music 
developed in the Muggle world *after* the WW went into hiding, 
suggests that there must have been some sort of respectable 
interaction between the cultures.  Even if that respect was gained 
by the wizards deliberately fooling themselves.

I think the WW has clung with desperate stubbornness to those things 
that define it as a different culture because they do recognize how 
easily their culture could be swept away by the more vibrant and 
progressive Muggle culture.  (I'm thinking of their robes here.  No 
way there hasn't been thoughts of going with pants, especially for 
quidditch games.)  I think that fear is part of what made the Death 
Eaters so easy for Voldemort to form.  But their world is too filled 
with Muggle items given a wizard twist to suggest that their culture 
is truly seperate from the Muggle one.  And I'm betting that would 
include their music.

Betsy Hp






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sun Nov  6 23:30:30 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:30:30 -0000
Subject: FILK: When I  Leave Her
Message-ID: <dkm3mm+uca1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142559

When I Leave Her

To the tune of the Beatles' And I Love Her

MIDI here:

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2729/index2.html

Dedicated to Ginger

HARRY:
For six years I've been here
At Hogwarts School
The wisdom I've learned here 
Worth more than jewels 
I'll leave it

The love that Ginny gave
As bright as day 
I must learn to be brave
And walk away  
When I leave her 

A fate like mine
Is hard to bear 
Because I care 
I have to go 

Upon the stairs he stood
I saw him die 
The greatest force for good 
Told me goodbye 
He did leave me 

My mission darkly calls
I must comply 
When the last Horcrux falls
Voldy will die
And he'll leave us
..

   -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
(updated today with 45 new filks)







From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 22:22:03 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:22:03 -0000
Subject: What's in a name? (Re: CHAPDisc - Spinner's End)
Message-ID: <dklvmb+bv63@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142560

On first reading HBP I concluded that Severus Snape had finally been 
revealed in his true colours, in that he is LV's man through and 
thorugh. This view has modified somewhat on closer analysis and 
rereadings, but I still think, due to certain sayings of JKR, that 
Snape is not a good man. I propose a new moniker for him, that is 
LANO!Snape. (Looking after number one).

To the point of this post. The chapter title of Chapter Two in HBP 
is IMO a play on words. I believe it has nothing to do with spiders 
or weaving.

My view is that it is a play on words, particularly the word spin, 
which is quite a buzzword in the UK (thinking particularly of 
Alistair Campbell and his fellow spin doctors).

JKR has quite often made plays on words and if I am correct then the 
chapter title is a large clue as to Snape's allegiance. It means the 
end of the spin that Snape is good. Whether this means he is truly 
ESE!Snape or LANO!Snape I have yet to fully determine, so it will be 
back to the books and interviews again for possible expansion.

Goddlefrood throwing this out in the hope that someone can prove me 
wrong









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 00:32:32 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:32:32 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dklvjk+7vpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkm7b0+d8bu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142561

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> For exactly the reason you've raised.  The WW is not a culture that 
> encourages artistic creativity.  They're a tiny little population 
> with one school, and that school doesn't teach music. (Or theater 
> or art or literature...)  So if a wizard is into chamber music, 
> he'll have to look beyond the WW to find his fix.

Except that we've been given examples of wizards engaging in 
explicitly derivative, but wizardly, forms of the arts.  I think of 
the book titles: "Hairy Snout, Human Heart" is an overt parody 
(although I can't quite remember exactly what of), and "Helas, j'ai 
Transfigure mes Pieds" (by the wizard Malecrit) would definitely have 
appealed to that mischevious medieval sense of humor.

I think the parodic element is the key one here, on JKR's part.

> Also, the forms of music they listen to (a torch singer, a rock 
> group, chamber music) were all formed by specific and logical 
> progressions of Muggle culture.  A culture the WW purportes to have 
> no part of.

Wizarding society could definitely support rock music; chamber music, 
one wonders about.  Opera is right out.  But there's nothing stopping 
them from being parasitic--but then generating their own *versions* 
of things, as opposed to going to the Muggle world for their fix.  
When you have the Weird Sisters, you don't need to go out of your way 
to get records of The Who.

<snip discussion of economics which is IMO a giant incoherent 
sinkhole and one thing which marks Rowling's work as wainscot fantasy 
and not anywhere near the high genre; in other words, do I think 
she's really thought about it through to full coherency?  Haha.> 

<snip>

> Or maybe it's like music and culture in the USA a while ago, where 
> a white audience listened to black performers in a hotel the 
> performers were not allowed to stay in.

Possible.  Opera, still, is a social genre and involves necessary 
engagement with Muggles...and Lucius Malfoy is one of our model 
ideologues, although not a Bellatrix-class fanatic.  Again, my 
contention is about engagement with overtly Muggle musics and social 
settings therefore, not potential wizarding adaptations thereof.  
Lucius Malfoy at Covent Garden?  Well, I guess more likely there than 
Sadler's Wells...

> But the very fact that Dumbledore is noted as being fond of chamber 
> music on his Chocolate Frog card, and the fact that chamber music 
> developed in the Muggle world *after* the WW went into hiding, 
> suggests that there must have been some sort of respectable 
> interaction between the cultures.  Even if that respect was gained 
> by the wizards deliberately fooling themselves.

But Dumbledore is also *exceptional* in his relationship to the 
Muggle world, as emphasized again and again.  He doesn't see it just 
as a source to be exploited (the Quidditch World Cup organizers 
attitude) or as something to be scorned and mocked (the default 
DE/pureblood fanatic mode).  I can't think of any other adult 
character prominent in society who has an understanding of it like 
him.

> But their world is too filled with Muggle items given a wizard 
> twist to suggest that their culture is truly separate from the 
> Muggle one.  And I'm betting that would include their music.

The twist is the essential key word.  I'm not disputing that there's 
borrowings of musical technologies: the piano is one of the most 
solid ones that we have, and an old gramophone (which would probably 
play 78s, not LPs...).  But there's absolutely no evidence of 
borrowing and maintenance of Muggle music, as opposed to the 
adaptation of musical forms.  Carnatic music uses the violin, but 
that in no way makes it 'Western' music.  I still object 
wholeheartedly to the idea that Muggle music is a large-scale 
presence in wizarding society.

-Nora doesn't quite see Snape as patient enough for most of the 
classical music ascribed to his tastes, but that's another discussion






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 03:45:34 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 03:45:34 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkm7b0+d8bu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkmiku+mnoi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142562

> >>Nora:
> Except that we've been given examples of wizards engaging in 
> explicitly derivative, but wizardly, forms of the arts.  I think   
> of the book titles: "Hairy Snout, Human Heart" is an overt parody 
> (although I can't quite remember exactly what of), and "Helas,     
> j'ai Transfigure mes Pieds" (by the wizard Malecrit) would        
> definitely have appealed to that mischevious medieval sense of     
> humor.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not sure I'd use self-help books as an example of literary 
culture.  But that's just me. <g>

> >>Nora:
> I think the parodic element is the key one here, on JKR's part.

Betsy Hp:
I agree, to an extent.  But if we're to give the characters a bit of 
depth we need to engage the WW as an actual culture, rather than a 
parody of our own.  And I'd say that while there is a parodic 
element, JKR's entire point is not one of parody.  

And that a few wizards, here or there, try to do a bit of writing or 
performing on their own doesn't suggest that they haven't cribbed a 
great deal of their ideas from the Muggle world.

> >>Nora:
> Wizarding society could definitely support rock music; chamber     
> music, one wonders about.  Opera is right out.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think you missed my point here. Rock music formed from a very 
specific cultural evolution.  There is nothing within the WW's 
history to think that they would have formed that type of music 
completely (or even partially) on their own.  So the Weird Sisters 
*must* have formed because of Muggle music wizards heard and shared 
with each other.  They could not exist otherwise.

> >>Nora:
> But there's nothing stopping them from being parasitic--but then  
> generating their own *versions* of things, as opposed to going to 
> the Muggle world for their fix. When you have the Weird Sisters,   
> you don't need to go out of your way to get records of The Who.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I bet you would.  Seriously, would you limit your musical 
experience to just one group?  Why should music lovers in the WW be 
forced to live under such privation?  How many different orchestras 
and conducters do we have here in the Muggle world playing their own 
interpertations of great music?  Why should folks in the WW limit 
themselves to the one (if they're lucky) their culture could support?

Some might, of course (Molly springs to mind).  But others would 
not.  And not just music, but theater, art, literature.

> >>Nora: 
> <snip discussion of economics which is IMO a giant incoherent 
> sinkhole and one thing which marks Rowling's work as wainscot      
> fantasy and not anywhere near the high genre; in other words, do I 
> think she's really thought about it through to full coherency?     
> Haha.> 

Betsy Hp:
So I've never heard the phrase "wainscot fantasy" and have no idea 
what you mean there.  But I do cry foul to the old "JKR didn't think 
it through" cop out.  Come on now.  This is either a viable world 
she created or it's not.  I think there are ways to see it as 
viable, and this is my version.  You may disagree, but don't just 
take your ball and go home.  How can I possibly take your music 
arguments seriously if you turn around and say this is a mock-up 
world anyway and should only be taken as such? <g>

> >>Nora:
> But Dumbledore is also *exceptional* in his relationship to the 
> Muggle world, as emphasized again and again.  He doesn't see it   
> just as a source to be exploited...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but being a parasite on the Muggle world *is* exploiting 
Muggles.  That's practically the definition.  I'm betting that 
whatever the WW takes from the Muggle world the Muggles are likely 
being ripped-off.  (Slughorn is a perfect example, I think.  I doubt 
the folks whose homes he stayed in would be thrilled if they knew.) 

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> But there's absolutely no evidence of borrowing and maintenance of 
> Muggle music, as opposed to the adaptation of musical forms.       
> Carnatic music uses the violin, but that in no way makes           
> it 'Western' music.  I still object wholeheartedly to the idea    
> that Muggle music is a large-scale presence in wizarding society.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but Harry recognizes the type of singing Warbeck does.  It's a 
type from the Muggle world.  That's my entire point.  For the WW 
music to so match the Muggle world means that either the Muggle 
world got it from them, or they got it from the Muggles.  Since the 
WW culture puts so little importance in music they must have 
piggybacked the Muggle musical culture.

If it were otherwise their music would have developed completely 
apart from the Muggle world and Harry would not see a similarity.  
Just as the first Europeans to hear a Chinese opera would not see a 
similarity with their own operas.

> -Nora doesn't quite see Snape as patient enough for most of the 
> classical music ascribed to his tastes, but that's another         
> discussion

Betsy Hp:
Yes, because inventing your own spells and improving on various 
potions is such a sign of a lack of patience. (Sorry. Couldn't help 
myself. <g>)

Betsy Hp







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 04:13:45 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 04:13:45 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkmiku+mnoi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkmk9p+oenc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142563

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not sure I'd use self-help books as an example of literary 
> culture.  But that's just me. <g>

It's not self-help--it's a literary plea for the rights and humanity 
of werewolves.  That, and pseudo-Moliere...

> Betsy Hp:
> I think you missed my point here. Rock music formed from a very 
> specific cultural evolution.  There is nothing within the WW's 
> history to think that they would have formed that type of music 
> completely (or even partially) on their own.  So the Weird Sisters 
> *must* have formed because of Muggle music wizards heard and shared 
> with each other.  They could not exist otherwise.

That's not true.  Popular musics with surprising similiarities have 
evolved in cultures with relatively little or no contact with each 
other--or things have been adapted from a genuinely minimal contact.  
You do a little comparative musicology (you do a lot...), you go "Wow-
-that's really alike in so many ways, but those cultures had no 
contact with each other."  [Or it was 1500 years ago, that sort of 
thing...]  As well, it doesn't necessarily require such a direct spur 
of Muggle music to provide the influence.  For instance, did you know 
that the 'jazz' so influential on European composers of the 1920's 
and such was not actually ever heard by them?  It was spread via 
scanty notation, which as anyone will tell you, is not a way you're 
ever going to actually learn jazz.

Given the split happening when the most foundational principles of 
the Western musical tradition are pretty solidly set, if not all the 
generic and instrumental manifestations, it's not like the wizards 
would be having to evolve musical culture from scratch.

> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, I bet you would.  Seriously, would you limit your musical 
> experience to just one group?  Why should music lovers in the WW be 
> forced to live under such privation?  How many different orchestras 
> and conducters do we have here in the Muggle world playing their 
> own interpertations of great music?  Why should folks in the WW 
> limit themselves to the one (if they're lucky) their culture could 
> support?

But that's within the orbit of a single culture, the conductors 
example.  (It's also only possible with the advents of certain kinds 
of recording cultures.)  As soon as you bring up conductors you're 
also invoking music with a completely different ontological status 
and means of dissemination from the popular musics which we've been 
focused on, so the rules of the game are completely and utterly 
different.

One other thing that comes to mind is that *no* Muggle group is going 
to be active participants in the methods of dissemination that the WW 
takes part in.  They're complete cultural outsiders--they don't even 
know that it exists--what kind of publicity can they get?  Nothing 
like the adorable banners on JKR's website (the wizarding 
advertisements) for them, and probably not on the Wizarding Wireless, 
either.  Word-of-mouth is inevitably a much smaller phenomenon.

> Betsy Hp:
> So I've never heard the phrase "wainscot fantasy" and have no idea 
> what you mean there.  But I do cry foul to the old "JKR didn't 
> think it through" cop out.  Come on now.  This is either a viable 
> world she created or it's not.

Law of the excluded middle.  There are ways that it's viable, and 
ways that it makes no sense.

> I think there are ways to see it as viable, and this is my 
> version.  You may disagree, but don't just take your ball and go 
> home.  How can I possibly take your music arguments seriously if 
> you turn around and say this is a mock-up world anyway and should 
> only be taken as such? <g>

Because on a simple factual level, and even dealing with details, 
there are things that make sense and things which 
just...well...don't.  Wainscot fantasy is a sub-genre dealing with 
hidden worlds inside of other worlds, and the relationships between 
the two are frequently far more fantastic than worked-out in 
excruciating detail.  So I'd say that there are definite limits to 
what one can do, and it's just built into the nature of the genre.

I'm offering hypothetics about music cultures because that's what I 
know a great deal about, and because it's a much more limited topic 
than economics, which controls everything.  It also has a potential 
(which I see decreasing the more I think about it) of being argued 
out a little more coherently and with thematic resonance.

On the other hand, has anyone ever made unassailable sense of the 
number of students at Hogwarts, the ratios of populations in 
Wizarding Britain, and the overall population?  Is that a no I hear?  
I think it's because it just can't be worked out to satisfy all 
parameters, and it doesn't even get close.

> Betsy Hp:
> Yes, but Harry recognizes the type of singing Warbeck does.  It's a 
> type from the Muggle world.  That's my entire point.  For the WW 
> music to so match the Muggle world means that either the Muggle 
> world got it from them, or they got it from the Muggles.  Since the 
> WW culture puts so little importance in music they must have 
> piggybacked the Muggle musical culture.

The style of singing in European culture hasn't varied that much in 
1000+ years, I can tell you. :)  He'd probably have noticed if she 
were singing like a khyaliya, yes.  So that falls into the common 
cultural property bag, as does diatony.  Wizards do seem to care less 
for consonance/dissonance regulation, however...

> If it were otherwise their music would have developed completely 
> apart from the Muggle world and Harry would not see a similarity.  
> Just as the first Europeans to hear a Chinese opera would not see a 
> similarity with their own operas.

I don't think I've ever said that there haven't been borrowings.  
What I'm arguing, again, is the point that people in the WW seem 
rather unlikely to go forth and make central the consumption of 
specific Muggle musical products.  Have we ever heard of anyone 
reading a recognizable piece of Muggle literature?  Not outside of a 
thousand bleach-to-brain fanfics.

> Betsy Hp:
> Yes, because inventing your own spells and improving on various 
> potions is such a sign of a lack of patience. (Sorry. Couldn't help 
> myself. <g>)

Invention patience...ah, not the same animal as listening to music 
(especially the music you all wanted to ascribe to him) as anything 
more than aural wallpaper. :)

-Nora doesn't see Snape being interested in drawing a 5-line...






From bartl at sprynet.com  Mon Nov  7 02:20:56 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:20:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in a name? (Re: CHAPDisc - Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <dklvmb+bv63@eGroups.com>
References: <dklvmb+bv63@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <436EBA08.5040200@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142564

Goddlefrood wrote:
> JKR has quite often made plays on words and if I am correct then the 
> chapter title is a large clue as to Snape's allegiance. It means the 
> end of the spin that Snape is good. Whether this means he is truly 
> ESE!Snape or LANO!Snape I have yet to fully determine, so it will be 
> back to the books and interviews again for possible expansion.

Bart (should I say that next contains spoilers, or is that kind of given?):
OK, now the fact I've just started reading this list is going to come 
into play. What I'm about to suggest may have been gone over a few 
hundred times, so bear with me if it has. In any case, I am using 
inductive logic here; I am looking at the results, and trying to see the 
pieces that caused them. First of all, when Snape explains his behavior 
to Mrs. Black, there is one important action that he has performed which 
remains unexplained: His tipping off of the Order of the Phoenix to the 
raid on the Ministry. The inability of Dumbledore to get his hand healed 
implies that he was dead or dying anyway. In any case, I am among the 
ones who believes that Snape killed Dumbledore at Dumbledore's request. 
Snapes sniping at Harry might be considered gloating, but, if there was 
a purpose behind it, there were two:

1) To convince Harry that Snape is loyal to Voldemort, so that Voldemort 
cannot find out otherwise from breaking into Harry's mind.

2) To FINALLY convince Harry that he needs to develop his Occlumancy 
skills.

Now, given this, and all of Snapes' known behavior (including his 
helping/hating relationship with Harry), instead of looking to clues of 
what did cause it, I've tried to figure out what COULD cause it, and 
came to a conclusion:

Snape was in love with Lily Potter.

What do you all think about this? Or has it been brought up a time or 
dozen before, and thoroughly debunked?

	Bart







From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 06:04:39 2005
From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:04:39 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T_?=
Message-ID: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142565

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
3, Will and Won't.

Summary:

The chapter starts with Harry asleep in his untidy room.  A 
newspaper is out, showing an article about the fight in the Ministry 
and the prophecy.  The article refers to Harry as "the Chosen One."  
[see Question 1 below]  A second article announces that Rufus 
Scrimgeour is the new Minister of Magic, and tells us that he was 
formerly Head of the Auror office.  [Q2]  This article also tells us 
of a "rift between the new Minister and Albus Dumbledore."  [Q3]

Yet a third article discusses the "tough new measures" for security 
at Hogwarts, stating that most people "seem reassured" by them.  
Augusta Longbottom is quoted bragging about Neville, but the rest of 
her comment is hidden under Hedwig's cage.  [Q4]  In addition to the 
newspapers, we see a Ministry leaflet, "Protecting Your Home and 
Family Against Dark Forces."  [Q5, Q6]

In his hand, Harry has a letter from Dumbledore, telling Harry that 
he is to be escorted to the Burrow for the remainder of the summer 
and that Dumbledore would be glad of Harry's assistance in some 
task.  Harry's room is so messy because he was pessimistic about 
getting away from the Dursleys so quickly and he hesitated in 
packing.  [Q7]

Harry wakes up just as Dumbledore arrives at 4 Privet Drive.  
Dumbledore politely avoids a confrontation with Vernon by expecting 
manners: "...let us assume that you have invited me warmly into your 
house."  In addition, Dumbledore has an air about him that prevents 
Vernon from trying to bully him. The Headmaster forces the Dursleys 
to sit down by moving the sofa then conjures glasses and mead for 
everyone.  When the Dursleys try to ignore them, the glasses keep 
bumping them in the head.  For the next two and a half pages, 
Dumbledore speaks directly to Harry and completely ignores the 
Dursleys.  [Q8]

We pick up a number of details from this discussion: Buckbeak is 
staying with Hagrid and is now called Witherwings; Harry notices 
Dumbledore's injured hand; and, answering one of the first questions 
we all asked after reading the end of OoP, that someone found 
Sirius's will (identifying the first part of the chapter title).  As 
many predicted, Sirius has left everything to Harry.  Harry's 
reaction is reserved - he doesn't want to return to the house where 
Sirius had been so unhappy.  Dumbledore says the Order had moved out 
temporarily until they could determine if Harry really owns the 
house.  [Q9, Q10]  

Vernon seems very interested in hearing that Harry's godfather is 
dead, and that Harry has inherited his house. ("...said Uncle Vernon 
greedily...")  [Q11]

Dumbledore conjures Kreacher who appears, repeating "Kreacher 
won't..." (the second half of the chapter title).  Upon Harry's 
order to shut up, Kreacher's incessant chanting of "won't, won't, 
won't" turns unwillingly silent, proving that Harry has indeed 
inherited Kreacher and the house.  To keep Kreacher away from 
Bellatrix, Harry orders Kreacher to work in the Hogwarts kitchens.  
[Q12]

When Harry is ready to leave, Dumbledore turns to the Dursleys and 
speaks to them directly for the first time since entering the house 
(not counting the issue with the glasses of mead).  He chastises 
them for their cruelty and neglect of Harry, and comments on "the 
appalling damage" done to Dudley.  [Q13, Q14]

Dumbledore explains to the Dursleys that until Harry comes of age, 
the one magic that Dumbledore could evoke to keep Harry safe from 
Voldemort works while Harry can still call Number 4 Privet Drive 
his "home."  This powerful protection will cease once Harry comes of 
age.  [Q15]  Dumbledore says, "I only ask this: that you allow Harry 
to return, once more, to this house, before his seventeenth 
birthday, which will ensure that the protection continues until that 
time."  The Dursleys do not answer, but Aunt Petunia "was oddly 
flushed".  [Q16, Q17]

- - - - -

Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a 
grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your 
interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you think 
this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore 
refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
between them?

Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the new 
security measures?  What do you think she said that is hidden from 
us?

Q5:  Do these measures seem reasonable?

Q6:  We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave.  In 
what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?

Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason to 
believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

Q9:  Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12 
Grimmauld Place?  Why not move someplace friendlier?  Do they 
secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black?  <g>  Is it because Phineas's 
portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?

Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
the house?

Q11:  Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something more 
significant?

Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the 
Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's 
orders to Kreacher still apply?

Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At 
this point, why say it at all?  

Q14:  Will there be consequences for either Harry or Dudley in 
Dumbledore's having done this?  

Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of age" 
that would cause the protection to end?  

Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?

And to repeat the Potioncat's question from Chapter 2:
Ch2-Q10. Here's a question to think about when we move into chapter 
3: "The Other Minister" begins with a Muggle receiving two 
visitors.  It's an informative, yet humorous chapter. The 
dreary "Spinners End" begins with two visitors coming to a very 
different Muggle location. "Will and Won't" begins with someone 
waiting for a visitor and returns us to a more humorous mood. How do 
these three chapters work together?

Ravenclaw Bookworm
<with fresh coffee and a plate of fresh brownies for SSSusan and 
Petra>


NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 07:48:59 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:48:59 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
In-Reply-To: <20051105225421.18586.qmail@web36109.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkn0tb+grsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142566

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, T Fontes <darkwarrior419 at y...>
wrote:
>
> Marianne: 
> 
> I'm already perturbed at JKR's management of dead Sirius. Speaking
> as someone who was a young teen when I lost my mother, the idea 
> that there was no memorial service for Sirius struck me as 
> heartless for the lack of support that sort service could have 
> given to Harry, as well as a sign of respect for the deceased. 

> Teresa:
> I've always wanted to believe that since their was no service, 
> Sirius isn't dead. Not likely, mind you but it help me. :)
>
> Teresa-who is most unhappy with Sirius' death.


bboyminn:

Just a few quick comments on this subject. First, there are several
kinds of services that can be held. I noticed you used the term
'Memorial Service', and while the terms are frequently interchangable,
a memorial service is not always what is held. 

My terms may be off, but here is my thinking. When someone is 'lost at
 sea' or 'missing in action - presumed dead', a memorial service is
held where mourner can remember and honor a person for whom their is
no body. When there is a body, what is preformed is a burial service.
Of course, frequently there is both.

The point I'm making is that various /services/ are not for the dead,
they are for the living; a chance to say goodbye, a chance to make
peace, a chance to resolve and finalize the death in your mind, and
are part of the grieving process. 

Regardless of whether Sirius comes back or not, I think the people
around Harry deprived him of that aspect of the grieving process. The
deprived him of a chance to mark the occassion with certainty, and to
say a final goodbye. This would also give Harry a chance to say some
of the things that he never got around to saying in real life. It
would have been a healthy catharsis. I'm very surprised that the
people surrounding Harry and taking care of him didn't see the need
for Harry to say a final goodbye, to have that cleansing catharsis. 

It may be a cultural thing. Perhaps funerals aren't that important in
Britian, or maybe it's just the wizard world. If the focus is on
Burial Services then to some extent I can see it as there is nothing
to bury. But regardless of whether there is something to bury, it is
healthy to have one last rememberance, a chance to say goodbye, and a
chance to start letting go and move on.

I know I haven't really added much, but I do find it disturbing that
/someone/ didn't create even an informal occassion in which Sirius
could be remembered, honor, and bit farwell. If nothing else, a quick
toast would have been nice.

Just some rambling thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov  7 13:06:43 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:06:43 -0000
Subject: What's in a name? (Re: CHAPDisc - Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <dklvmb+bv63@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dknjh3+q0jd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142567

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at y...> 
wrote: 
> To the point of this post. The chapter title of Chapter Two in HBP 
> is IMO a play on words. I believe it has nothing to do with spiders 
> or weaving.
> 
> My view is that it is a play on words, particularly the word spin, 
> which is quite a buzzword in the UK (thinking particularly of 
> Alistair Campbell and his fellow spin doctors).


Potioncat:
Your idea is a valid one. But this is not a me too post. BTW what is 
the origen of "spin doctor"? It's used in the US as well. 

I think JKR knew very well what she was doing and I think she was 
using many meanings of spin, and using them within the dangerous mood 
she had set up in this chapter. Snape has already been compared to 
spiders. There are two spy(ders) in the house. Snape uses the 
phrase "spun a tale." The houses belonged to a mill which had also 
met its end. I'm sure JKR had your meaning in mind as well.

This list discussed the possible inspriration for the name Spinner's 
End both before and immdiately after the book came out. Someone 
actually found an address "Spinner's End" and an associated mill. I 
wouldn't put it past JKR to have come across that name...just like 
she did with Snape... and decide to use it. Used it very well, I 
think.

I read the HP books to my youngest. With his short attention span it 
takes us days to get through a chapter. We've noticed many times that 
it isn't until the very end of the chapter that its title makes 
sense. In that case, the stupid, stupid UV was the Spinner's End.

Potioncat who can't help it. A Spin doctor would be someone who 
repaired LPs and 45's.










From erica at network172.com  Mon Nov  7 06:16:27 2005
From: erica at network172.com (susan_ivanova2258)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:16:27 -0000
Subject: Lilly and James - Harry as Head Boy
In-Reply-To: <dklla9+auag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkmrfr+7bpk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142568

Juli: 
> > I do believe Harry will become a Head Boy, that is if he returns
> > to Hogwarts. He may not be an O student all the way, but I think
> > he's above average, he doesn't get into trouble so often (unless 
> > you're counting the number of times he's trying to save the world
> > or his friends), he's well-liked...

bboyminn:
> I don't agree with Harry becoming Head Boy, but I will make one
> important point to consider while others ponder the possibility.
> 
> Harry, to become Head Boy, doesn't have to be the best there is, he
> doesn't have to be as brilliant as James or Sirius. He only has to
> be the best /in his year/. 


Do you not have to be a prefect in order to become Head Boy?

But even if not, another thing to consider (though I'm not sure what the consequences of it are) is that McGonagall is Headmistress now, so she's naming the Head Boy and Girl, and not only do I get the sense that she would focus more on academics when making her choice than Dumbledore, but also she doesn't regard Harry as highly as Dumbledore did. Throughout the books, even to the end of Half Blood Prince, she treats Harry as a child/inferior, she doesn't trust/listen to what he tells her, etc.. so I don't know that she would consider Harry for Head Boy (particularly over people like Ernie).

Erica









From mailbox1 at toughguy.net  Mon Nov  7 06:37:22 2005
From: mailbox1 at toughguy.net (mailbox1 at toughguy.net)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 06:37:22 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WW as Parasite
References: <dkm7b0+d8bu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005801c5e366$5a427000$758687d9@gateway>

No: HPFGUIDX 142569

Betsy Hp:
> For exactly the reason you've raised.  The WW is not a culture that 
> encourages artistic creativity.  They're a tiny little population 
> with one school, and that school doesn't teach music. (Or theater 
> or art or literature...)  So if a wizard is into chamber music, 
> he'll have to look beyond the WW to find his fix.


But that could just be what isn't in the book - no-one goes to the toilet either but I assume they all do it.  Therefore there could easily be classes for all of the above.

Just as an aside I have to confess to a feeling of great irritation that (being English), in the first book the school toilets were correctly known as "the girls toilets" but in every book since  they've been known as the "girls bathroom" when they are clearly not a bathroom at all.  Not a bath to be seen!

:O(

mailbox1


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







From maria.elmvang at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 10:27:24 2005
From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:27:24 +0100
Subject: What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <17785fc30511070227t38377865y58829b71eb84e2a@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142570

Hi all,
I have recently reread the series, and have come up with one thing that puzzled me. I have a feeling it's answered in one of the books, but cannot remember where nor the answer, so I'm hoping one of you will be able to help me. Forgive me if it's a stupid question.

Why was Voldemort unable to kill Harry? I know we were originally told that it was because his mother died to save him, but surely Lily wasn't the only mother who did that!! There must have been more to it. Especially when Voldemort not only wasn't able to kill Harry, but the curse reflected back on him and almost killed him instead. I'm sure I've read the answer to this *somewhere* but can't remember what it is, so I'm not even sure if I read it in canon or fanon. Can anybody help me out here?

Maria
 --
I believe in God like I believe in the sun
not because I see it, but by it
I see everything else
--- C.S. Lewis






From zehms at aol.com  Mon Nov  7 11:58:27 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 06:58:27 EST
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
Message-ID: <7f.6abc075a.30a09b63@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142571

regarding Sirius' death:

I agree that Harry has not recieved closure on his death, the lack of a memorial service had to have been intentional on JKR's part...

We must remember that Harry has never recieved closure on the deaths of his parents either.  He has never visited their grave sites, he has been told almost nothing about them, just passing information about how he shares their similar physical traits and personal characteristics.

I would be upset at this continuing lack of closure on the deaths of Harry's loved ones, except that I think that JKR has done this intentionally planning to use book 7 to finally bring Harry peace about the deaths of James, Lily, Sirius and now Dumbledore.

While DD did have a funeral at which Harry could grieve, Harry is still confused, and IMO, in the dark about the real events that culminated in DD's death.  IMO his belief that Snape 'murdered' DD is false and Snape will be redeemed in Harry's eyes (redeemed in the sense that Harry will realise that despite Snape's unlikeability, Snape was always loyal to DD). 

I also think Snape's change of heart that took place after telling LV of the prophecy  will center around Lily, and all of the pieces of the puzzle will finally come together.

I wouldn't be surprised if Harry were to somehow go beyond the veil to talk to spirits of his loved ones, regardless,  I confidently hope that JKR will allow Harry, and therefore all of the fans, sufficient closure regarding the death of Sirius and DD (and James an Lily for Harry).

Szehms






From zehms at aol.com  Mon Nov  7 12:28:45 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:28:45 EST
Subject: Snape in love? SNapes loyalities?
Message-ID: <bf.6407e455.30a0a27d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142572

Bart wrote:
> I am among the ones who believes that Snape killed Dumbledore at 
> Dumbledore's request.  Snapes sniping at Harry might be considered 
> gloating, but, if there was a purpose behind it, there were two:

> 1) To convince Harry that Snape is loyal to Voldemort, so that 
> Voldemort cannot find out otherwise from breaking into Harry's mind.
>
> 2) To FINALLY convince Harry that he needs to develop his Occlumancy
> skills.

> ...I've tried to figure out what COULD cause it, and came to a 
> conclusion:  Snape was in love with Lily Potter.



This message board is new to me, but I have participated in all the Barnes and Noble discussions and in the Leaky Cauldren discussions, and I can tell you that many fans, I included, think that Snape's repentance after revealing the prophecy to LV was because of his feelings towards Lily.

I think JKR has brilliantly written the role of Professor Snape, particularly in HBP. After HBP I think those who think that Snape is, and has always been, a death eater; and those who think Snape is loyal to Dumbledore can effectively argue their side with canon support. I think the character of Snape will be an issue debated until put to rest in book 7, and that is bloody brilliant on JKR's part!

Snape in Love?

Was Snape "in love" with her, I don't know...and I know many fans cringe at the thought, but what would sway DD's opinion about Snape more than a repentance story based on 'love'?  

I know many fans point to Snape calling Lily a "filthy little Mudblood" in OOTP, however, I would suggest as socially inept as Snape is he was acting out as a elementary school child who has a crush on a little girl, calling Lily a name to deflect the fact that he 'likes' her.

My belief about the reasons behind Snape's repentance began after OOTP, particularly with 'Snape's Worst Memory'.  I wondered why this particular scene was so horrifying for Snape, it appears he and James dueled and sparred quite a bit, IMO Snape was horrified to have his underpants revealed to one person present...Lily.  To be embarrassed in front of Lily was one thing, then to have his pride injured as she tried to 'save' him was another.  

In HBP my suspicions were further aroused as SLughorn constantly praises Lily's potions work, at first I thought the praise a deflection away from the real HBP, then I began to think that JKR was making a connection between Lily and Snape, both geniuses at potions.

My suspicion is further aroused when DD is reluctant to tell Harry the truth behind Snape's repentance, in HBP DD appears to be contimplating telling Harry why he has trusted Snape all these years, but then he decides against this action.  

IMO DD could have believed that Harry could not grasp that Snape cared for Lily, more likely he felt he would be betraying Snape's trust to tell Harry Snape's most guarded secret....DD may have felt that only Snape can reveal this to Harry.

I can think of no better reason for DD to accept Snape's repentance that Snape spinning a tale of 'love'.

Snape's Loyalities?

I think Professor Snape is JKR's most complex character. I think Snape has become a perpetual red herring throughout the series (and after book 6 this trend continues), primarily because even when he saves or helps Harry, Hermione, Ron, or a member of the order his demeanor is so, well repulsive. His loathing of a character we all love, Harry Potter, makes Snape as a character difficult to like, on top of that he is rude an hurtful to Hermione, and he relentlessly torments loveable Neville Longbottom-quite truthfully he is VERY EASY TO HATE.

Snape's behavior, his prejudices, in conjunction with the fact that he was (and to some still is) a death eater has made Snape an easy target to vilify.

JKR has let us take a small peek into Snape's past in OOTP- Snape's Worst Memory. His upbringing is definitely one which inspires pity, the fact that he was an outcast, ugly, greasy and possessing the same bad temperament we witness in the series, made him a target for ridicule by his worst enemy James (and Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew), this of course caused me to pity him a little, until he called Lily a filthy mudblood, that is.

Despite JKR's peek into Snape's background, I do not pity him much, nor do I like him, but since book 1 I have trusted him. Why?    Because Dumbledore has always trusted him.

I have no love for Snape; In book 3, I was so angry at him when he wouldn't listen to Sirius and Lupin's explanations; In book 5, I hated the way he tormented Sirius; I was angry that he didn't help Harry to become a better occludes.  Also in book 6, I was distraught that it was he who for all appearances killed Dumbledore in HBP. However, I think Snape can indeed be redeemed by JKR. 

In Book 7 I just want to know how Snape earned Dumbledore's trust, I want Snape to be worth Dumbledore's sacrafice, but most of all I want Dumbledore to be right! If Snape was always a traitor, then Dumbledore has been played a fool, and that is a wretched way to end Dumbledore's life-as a great wizard who in the end has been "hoodwinked" by a repulsive character like Snape.

I think JKR can turn our opinion  by showing us exactly how Snape earned Dumbledore's trust and maybe we as readers can, like Dumbledore, pity and regain trust of Snape once we learn the reason (did it have to with Love for Lily?). 

But the most important way Snape can be redeemed is if we discover that Snape has indeed always been loyal to Dumbledore, perhaps we would discover this just as Snape gives his life to protect one of our beloved characters.

My opinion is that despite his faults I think Snape has always tried to be of service to Dumbledore, and he continues to follow Dumbledore's plan, which we will learn more of in book 7. I believe because Dumbledore trusted him with his life.

I hope Dumbledore was right to trust Snape.

I think he is neither as good as Dumbledore, nor is as evil as Voldemort; I believe it was Lupin who said we cannot classify wizards into death eaters and non-death eaters, there are shades of grey.

I think JKR has done a brilliant job conveying the complexity of Snape's character, and I think she will effortlessly bring the story full circle.


szehms






From maria.elmvang at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 12:36:32 2005
From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:36:32 +0100
Subject: Why does Kreacher have to obey Harry? (was: Bits and pieces)
In-Reply-To: <1131248318.2798.63550.m7@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1131248318.2798.63550.m7@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <17785fc30511070436i6459cb97k6383f6dd489dc927@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142573

Carol notes:
> I think the fact that Kreacher has to do what Harry orders indicates
> not only that Sirius's will is valid but that he is truly dead.


Maria adds:
I agree, but it makes me wonder about one thing. I don't have the book with me right now, but I believe DD tells Harry that Kreacher didn't have to obey Sirius' orders, and that's how he could leave 12GP. If that's the case, then how come he has to obey Harry's orders?

Maria

--
> I believe in God like I believe in the sun
> not because I see it, but by it
> I see everything else
> --- C.S. Lewis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From ellecain at yahoo.com.au  Mon Nov  7 14:13:42 2005
From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:13:42 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
Message-ID: <dknnem+20vk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142574

Hey everyone!

After catching up on various posts I just have to
comment on the Staff activities/Snape's iPod thread 
that spawned serious music discussions later.
I enjoyed the posts thoroughly, and I laughed aloud
imagining Jogging!Snape listening to Pink Floyd's 'The Wall'

(BTW now I know Snape's Muggle world identity and profession -
lead singer of Nine Inch Nails - I think we should send an article
to the Quibbler entitled "Severus Snape - Cold Hearted Murderer
or Innocent Singing Sensation?") : -)

Anyway, while I love the thought provoking posts by the more 
intelligent listmembers, I think it necessary to allow for some 
humourous respite among them. We cant be serious all the time can we?
So with a view to promoting this sort of capricious jocular posting 
behaviour I have taken the liberty of giving it a title.

I propose that this sort of thing be called W.A.F.F.L.E.S.
the translation of which is:
Whimsical Adventure of Fanciful Frivolity, Lighthearted but 
Entertaining Speculation

Now this is my second ever acronym, so please be kind.
It was the best I could come up with and I'm sure  that smarter, 
more experienced listmembers can come up with something better.
Now the whole point of W.A.F.F.L.E.S. is to speculate on 
small insignificant things, and allow for wildly fantastic imagery 
to support it for the sheer humour value. It's all about details, 
tiny things that we may never see a satisfactory explanation of in 
canon, doesnt have anything to do with future plot twists or 
insightful readings and revealations, yet cannot be consigned to the 
OT Chatter list.
As long as it is in some
way lighthearted or frivolous, one may call it W.A.F.F.L.E
One who W.A.F.F.L.E.S. is a W.A.F.F.L.E.R and anyone is allowed to 
be one.
The symbol of W.A.F.F.L.E.S. is......you guessed it....a waffle!
(but we could have An Elixir To Induce Euphoria)

So, what can we  W.A.F.F.L.E about? The colour of Lupin's eyes (we 
havent been told IIRC), whether Flitwick is touchy about being 
short, the games on Draco's playstation, whether Phineas Nigellus 
was really ever a teacher and if so what subject did he teach, James 
Potter's hex on Bertram Aubrey, how Bellatrix henpecks her 
husband....you get the picture.

Now I'm going to W.A.F.F.L.E, so I give you fair warning. If you 
dont like slightly malodramaic posts about ludicrous issues then 
feel free to skip this post. I know they can be irritating and 
annoying and you might want to focus on more important issues.I 
assure you I wont be offended.

So, straight into it. Today's diatri- I mean post, is going to 
explore the issue of...

<insert much fanfare, trumpets, and drumroll here>

Hair
Or more specifically, Long Hair.
As Uncle Vernon says in PoA :"No need to tell us hes no good.
Look at the state of his hair, the filthy layabout!"

Now I have nothing against long hair or men with long hair.
Some of the hunkiest actors in Hollywood from Brad Pitt to Jhonny 
Depp have looked swoon worthy in long hair.

But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
This has bothered me for a very long time. I think we can take it 
for granted that Snape is not a vain man. I think the greasy hair, 
the yellow teeth, the lack of wardrobe variation, points us in this 
direction. But if he really does not care about his looks, 
shouldnt he get a low maintenance crew cut which would ensure his 
hair getting washed when he has a bath?
(assuming he does have a bath :-))
Or he could go for the skinhead look and shave off his hair entirely.
If he really does care about his hair then shouldnt he wash it a bit 
more often? Or is Harry overly prejudiced when he describes it as 
greasy?

But he is not the only one. Why does Sirius have long hair?
It does not add to his looks. We have been told that he looks 
handsome in the Potters' wedding picture where he has short hair. In 
GoF when Harry talks to him in the fire his hair is short and he is 
described as looking better than he did with long hair. Yet in OOTP
when Harry talks to him in the fire he sweeps his long hair off his 
face.So why did he suddenly change from short hair to long hair 
which doesnt suit him? Is this a silent competition with Snape - my 
hair is longer than yours...sorta thing.

Snape is bent, maybe evil. His long hair is just barely acceptable 
but Sirius? Doesnt he knoe he looks good with his hair short? Hasnt 
anyone told him or did he not look in a mirror when his hair was 
short and fell with a casual elegance in his eyes....?

<pause to drool over handsome pre-Azkaban Sirius with misty eyed 
expession on face>

<snaps back to reality> 
Hey who says I cant like Snape and Sirius at the same time?
<waves at Siriusly Snapey Susan>

But if we get into the hair question, how does one cut his or her 
hair at Hogwarts? Do they have a spell that stops it growing?
How come Harry, Ron, the Weasleys all have no haircuts?
Is Sleakezy's hair potion really just a shampoo rip off from the 
Muggle world? What other magical haircare products do they have?

Elyse, who admits to being vain about her shoulder length locks











From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Mon Nov  7 15:25:09 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:25:09 -0000
Subject: Snape's future role
Message-ID: <dknrkl+gtec@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142575

I have been wondering about Snape's role in book 7 (I have been 
absent for a while, so excuse me if this has already been suggested), 
but it seems at least one of the tasks for Snape may be the 
identification of the final Horcrux.

We know that the locket, cup & Nagini make up three of the remaining 
Horcruxes, but we have no idea what the fourth Horcux is specifically 
(unless it is Harry himself!).

If we consider the potential plot of the final book, then Harry has 
to hunt down the remaining Horcruxes and destroy them. I think the 
locket won't be too difficult to find (either in the House of Black 
or in Kreacher's possession). Nagini will be with Voldemort, and 
hopefully is not too difficult to kill. However, bearing in mind DD's 
difficulty in tracking down Horcruxes, I can't believe that Harry 
will be able to seek out the final two Horcruxes (cup & ??), destroy 
them and defeat Voldemort in a calender year!!!

I wonder if Snape may return to Voldemort and explain that DD knew 
about the 6 Horcruxes, and that some are destroyed. He could claim 
that DD never trusted Snape enough to reveal the location of all the 
Horcruxes, but that DD may have passed the knowledge on to HP. 
Bearing in mind Voldemort's respect for the prophecy, this would be 
worrying news. Snape could promise Voldemort that he would act as 
proector of the Horcruxes. Hasn't his removal of DD proved his 
allegiance!!

The final confrontation between HP and LV could then unfold thus.
LV - 'It seems I have underestimated you Potter. You have succeeded 
in destroying all but one of my Horcruxes. However, you still face me 
today with the knowledge that you cannot completely vanquish me'.
SS - 'I hate to disagree my Lord, but I have destroyed your final 
Horcrux. You are indeed a mortal man'.

Brothergib







From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Mon Nov  7 15:42:08 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:42:08 -0000
Subject: Snape's Grudge
Message-ID: <dknskg+am4e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142576

It seems to me that a number of people hate Snape due to his treatment 
of his students. Within HPFGU there seems to be an acceptance that 
Snape hates Harry due to his old prejudice towards his father, and that 
this is vaguely understandable. The real vitriol that is directed 
towards Snape actually appears to be due to his behaviour towards 
Hermione/Neville. However, Snape's prejudice may well be against all 
Gryffindors (his tormenters' house).

I don't suppose that Snape is particularly pleasant to anyone, but is 
there any canon that shows Snape mistreating Hufflepuffs/Ravenclaws.

Brothergib






From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Nov  7 15:48:11 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:48:11 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dknnem+20vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dknsvr+3cva@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142577

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" <ellecain at y...> 
wrote:
>  the issue of...
> 
> <insert much fanfare, trumpets, and drumroll here>
> 
> Hair
> Or more specifically, Long Hair.
 > But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
> This has bothered me for a very long time. I think we can take it 
> for granted that Snape is not a vain man. I think the greasy hair, 
> the yellow teeth, the lack of wardrobe variation, points us in this 
> direction. But if he really does not care about his looks, 
> shouldnt he get a low maintenance crew cut which would ensure his 
> hair getting washed when he has a bath?
> (assuming he does have a bath :-))
> Or he could go for the skinhead look and shave off his hair 
entirely.
> If he really does care about his hair then shouldnt he wash it a 
bit 
> more often? Or is Harry overly prejudiced when he describes it as 
> greasy?
> 

colebiancardi: I have no IDEA why Snape has long hair - and how long 
is it?  Is it shoulder-length or down to his butt?  I have always 
envisioned it as shoulder-length.  I am also conflicted, due to the 
illustrations in the American books - Does Snape really have a 
goatee?  Is that the way Rowling preceives him - because I would 
think she would have nixed the Snape-with-a-goatee picture a long 
time ago if that was the case.  And what is with his hairline 
starting in the middle of top of his head?   But back to Snape's 
hair - I would have thought if he has long hair and he is poking into 
everyone's cauldrons and his hair gets all sticky and yucky, that he 
would have his hair neatly tied back, like a ponytail.  I think his 
greasy hair is due to the potions and stuff or maybe it is just like 
Harry's hair - Harry cannot get his hair to sit down flat on his 
head, and when Aunt Petunia cuts it all off, it grows back the next 
day.  Perhaps Snape does wash his hair daily, but it won't stay 
clean, no matter how hard he tries.

Dumbledore also has long hair - VERY long hair.  So, I think it is 
acceptable in the WW to have long hair, but in the Dursley's eyes 
(and alas, many muggles), it is not.  They think hippies.
 > 
> <pause to drool over handsome pre-Azkaban Sirius with misty eyed 
> expession on face>

colebiancardi: I'll join you :-)
> 
> <snaps back to reality> 
> Hey who says I cant like Snape and Sirius at the same time?
> <waves at Siriusly Snapey Susan>

<colebiancardi waves at both SSS & Elyse as she also likes Snape & 
Sirius>
> 
> But if we get into the hair question, how does one cut his or her 
> hair at Hogwarts? Do they have a spell that stops it growing?
> How come Harry, Ron, the Weasleys all have no haircuts?
> Is Sleakezy's hair potion really just a shampoo rip off from the 
> Muggle world? What other magical haircare products do they have?
 
I think, based on what we know of Harry's hair, that the WW's hair 
has a way of wanting to do whatever it wants to do.  Sleakezy's hair 
potion aside(I believe that is one of those smoothing pomades, not a 
shampoo), which Hermione states it is too bothersome to use every 
day, the WW probably does wash their hair.  But to what extent: every 
day, every other day, once a week - would depend on the culture 
itself.  Americans wash their hair every day for the most part, 
unless they have very dry hair.  We are also considered by the rest 
of the world as a tad obsessed with bathing :)  

However, we do know that Hogwarts has bathrooms and bathtubs.  Do 
they have showers as well?  I would think that washing one's hair in 
a bathtub would not result in one wanting to wash their hair every 
day.  A shower, yes - bathtub, no.  Also, how do they dry their 
hair?  Someone like Hermione cannot walk around with wet hair - her 
hair is too long, too thick, too bushy.  We know DD can dry off 
Harry's clothes(per the lake scene), but Harry didn't know to do 
that.  Do the students have the WW version of a hairdryer?  

I am sure I have more questions on the WW's hygiene methods :)

colebiancardi








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 16:20:00 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:20:00 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dknsvr+3cva@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dknurg+cup5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142578

ellecain wrote:
> >  >  > But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
> > 

> colebiancardi: I have no IDEA why Snape has long hair - and how long 
> is it?  

a_svirn:

Maybe that's what keeps him lucky. You know, according to Shakespeare, 
Queen Mab, whose wagon-spokes by the way made of *spinners* 
legs, "bakes the elflocks in foul sluttish hairs, // Which once 
untangled, much misfortune bodes". A man can't drink Felix all the 
time, but keeping one's hair greasy and untidy to keep all misfortunes 
at bay is no great sacrifice for someone like Snape. 







From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Mon Nov  7 14:20:43 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:20:43 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
In-Reply-To: <dkn0tb+grsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dknnrr+ebub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142579

Marianne: 
> This lack was all the more glaring to me when we were
> later treated to a funeral for Aragog.
>
> Now, I realize there was a plot reason for Aragog's funeral. And,
> just because we saw no memorial service for Sirius doesn't mean 
> there wasn't one. However, since JKR didn't even mention in 
> passing that any sort of service was held, I'm of the opinion that 
> there was none.   

Lucianam:
I think for many people that was an instant comparison! I was okay 
with DD getting a funeral and Sirius getting nothing, because 
Dumbledore was a very important person in the Wizarding World and a 
much better wizard than Sirius was. But Aragog? I couldn't help 
thinking if other people thought it was such a contrast that a 
spider got a send-off by his loved ones (correction: loved one) and 
Harry never even toasted to his godfather's memory.

(As put above in the thread...:
> bboyminn:
> If nothing else, a quick toast would have been nice.)

Lucianam:
By the way, I have nothing against Hagrid burying Aragog properly, 
good for him he did it. 
 

bboyminn:
> When someone is 'lost at sea' or 'missing in action - presumed 
> dead', a memorial service is held where mourner can remember and 
> honor a person for whom their is no body. When there is a body, 
> what is preformed is a burial service. Of course, frequently there 
> is both.
> 
> The point I'm making is that various /services/ are not for the 
> dead, they are for the living; a chance to say goodbye, a chance 
> to make peace, a chance to resolve and finalize the death in your 
> mind, and are part of the grieving process. 
> 
> Regardless of whether Sirius comes back or not, I think the people
> around Harry deprived him of that aspect of the grieving process. 

Lucianam:
Maybe in the WW it is absolutely necessary that you have a body in 
order to have any sort of memorial service, goodbye ceremony, 
whatever. How strange of them. 

If that is not the case, I don't understand why there was nothing. 
Not that I ever understood JKR's take on Sirius. She practically had 
him star two books - PoA and OotP - and now she's practically 
ignored his death in HBP. Sirius's appearances in the HP series have 
been sort like a rollercoaster.

IMO she's very inconsistent in her management of Sirius (I'm not 
saying she manages him badly, on the contrary. Maybe it's all the 
contradictions that make him such an interesting puzzle?)

JKR on the infamous B5 death:

19 June 2003

The following is a edited transcript of JK's interview with Jeremy 
Paxman on Newsnight about the launch of Harry Potter and the Order 
of the Phoenix.  

JP: And is there going to be a death in this book? 

JKR: Yes. A horrible, horrible 

JP: A horrible death of a significant figure. 

JKR: Yeah. I went into the kitchen having done it... 

JP: What, killed this person? 

JKR: Yeah. Well I had re-written the death, re-written it and that 
was it. It was definitive. And the person was definitely dead. And I 
walked into the kitchen crying and Neil said to me, "What on earth 
is wrong?" and I said, "Well, I've just killed the person". Neil 
doesn't know who the person is. But I said, "I've just killed the 
person. And he said, "Well, don't do it then." I thought, a doctor 
you know... and I said "Well it just doesn't work like that. You are 
writing children's books, you need to be a ruthless killer." 

JP: Is it going to upset people? 

JKR: Yes. It upset me. I always knew it was coming, but I managed to 
live in denial, and carry on with the character and not think about 
it.'

Sounded like she loved him to bits, at least I think so. Now take a 
look at her answer to a FAQ question in her site:

'Do you like Sirius Black?
I've had several letters asking this, which rather surprised me. The 
answer is, yes, I do like him, although I do not think he is wholly 
wonderful (ooooh, I hear them sharpening the knives over at 
Immeritus [see "Fansite" section]). 

Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal 
philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. For instance, he 
says in "Goblet of Fire" that if you want to know what a man is 
really like, 'look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.' 
But Sirius loathes Kreacher, the house-elf he has inherited, and 
treats him with nothing but contempt. 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. Of course, these double standards exist in most of 
us; we might know how we ought to behave, but actually doing it is a 
different matter!'

I can't understand why she cried so much when she killed him! She 
seems to have a very cold, logical view of him, not emotional at 
all. 

That's what I mean by ambiguous management of Sirius's character and 
rollercoaster. Keeps me wondering if we'll see him again in Book 7, 
SAD DENIAL or not. I'm always aboard SAD DENIAL by the way, and 
always more than half-expecting the ship will sink and we will all 
drown.

On a smaller and insignificant note, funny thing Uncle Vernom seemed 
surprised by the news of 'his godfather being dead'. Maybe because 
he's a muggle he'd have expected some sort of official 
communication? Of course it's more likely he was dreaming of the 
money Harry inherited or was glad the murderous godfather had died, 
but I wonder if he wasn't a bit surprised.

Lucianam
(long and winding post, sorry!)






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov  7 16:24:39 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:24:39 -0000
Subject: Why does Kreacher have to obey Harry? (was: Bits and pieces)
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511070436i6459cb97k6383f6dd489dc927@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dknv47+9nhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142580

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Elmvang <maria.elmvang at g...> wrote:
>
> Carol notes:
> > I think the fact that Kreacher has to do what Harry orders indicates
> > not only that Sirius's will is valid but that he is truly dead.
> 
> 
> Maria adds:
> I agree, but it makes me wonder about one thing. I don't have the book with me right 
now, but I believe DD tells Harry that Kreacher didn't have to obey Sirius' orders, and that's 
how he could leave 12GP. If that's the case, then how come he has to obey Harry's orders?

Pippin:
Kreacher did have to obey.
Sirius said "Out!" which Kreacher interpreted as an order to leave.
But Kreacher could lie to his master, provided he punished himself afterwards.
Kreacher's bandaged fingers show that he was lying when he claimed to have
been in the attic.

What I wonder is whether Dumbledore offered Sirius the option of having 
Kreacher work at Hogwarts. If so, did Sirius turn it down?

Pippin






From lealess at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 17:05:23 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:05:23 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dknurg+cup5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko1gj+tkvp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142581

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
> ellecain wrote:
> > >  >  > But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
> > > 
> 
> > colebiancardi: I have no IDEA why Snape has long hair - and how 
> > long is it?  
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Maybe that's what keeps him lucky. 

Snape has long hair for the same reason that cops have mustaches: to 
hide any hint of emotion.  On the other hand, he may have had long 
hair as a 1970s working class youth, and just decided he liked the 
style.

Sirius may have kept his long hair from Azkaban because of depression 
or general apathy.  On the other hand, it is an accepted wizarding 
style.  Merlin is often depicted with long hair.  And Dumbledore had 
his flowing locks.

Agreeing with the "luck" conjecture, long hair probably confers 
strength to the wearer, as it did for Sampson, except this would be 
magical strength or wisdom.  For proof of this, see the Luxuriant 
Flowing Hair Club for Scientists: 
http://www.improbable.com/projects/hair/hair-club-top.html

Happy to participate in such an important discussion,
lealess








From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Mon Nov  7 18:33:06 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:33:06 -0000
Subject: Why does Kreacher have to obey Harry? (was: Bits and pieces)
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511070436i6459cb97k6383f6dd489dc927@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dko6l2+8ttq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142582


> Carol notes:
> > I think the fact that Kreacher has to do what Harry orders 
indicates
> > not only that Sirius's will is valid but that he is truly dead.
> 


Lucianam:

Just to stick to details, I don't think Kreacher obeying Harry's 
orders proves Harry is his rightful master. It doesn't prove Sirius is 
dead, either.

Suppose Sirius really died and for Black family inheritance law 
reasons his will was not valid. But, smart guy he is, Voldemort wants 
to trick the Order into thinking Harry really inherited Grimmauld 
Place. All Voldemort has to do is have Kreacher's new master, 
Bellatrix, order Kreacher to follow every order Harry gives him. So 
the Order would use their old HQ carelessly, and one day Death Eaters 
arrive at the door.

If Sirius is alive and for some reason he wants people to think he is 
dead, all he has to do is, similarly, tell Kreacher to follow Harry's 
orders. And of course not to tell anyone he is alive.

Just a couple of annoying thoughts!

Lucianam








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov  7 18:39:09 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:39:09 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <dknskg+am4e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko70d+unj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142583

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" <c.john at i...> 
wrote:
>
> It seems to me that a number of people hate Snape due to his 
treatment 
> of his students. Within HPFGU there seems to be an acceptance that 
> Snape hates Harry due to his old prejudice towards his father, and 
that 
> this is vaguely understandable. 

<SNIP>

Well, I don't quite know where you are getting that from.  Of course 
it depends on what you mean by "understandable."  If you mean that 
it can be, literally, intellectually explained, I think it is much 
more than "vaguely" understandable.  It would seem to be very 
clearly understood.

If, on the other hand, you mean that there is some consensus that, 
in some vague way, Snape's treatment of Harry is "understandable" in 
the sense of being "ameliorated in guilt or fault," I would say that 
absolutely no such consensus exists, even on a very imprecise 
level.  Certainly I do not accord any amelioration of guilt to Snape 
in any way, his actions and attitudes are absolutely and utterly 
unforgiveable.  Nor do I think Alla or Nora or many other people who 
find Snape's actions objectionable would agree that there is any 
kind of consensus on the issue whatsoever (and they may of course 
disagree with me on that one).


Lupinlore









From Sherry at PebTech.net  Mon Nov  7 18:48:41 2005
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:48:41 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko7i9+ktej@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142584

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rbookworm46" <rbookworm46 at y...>
wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
> 3, Will and Won't.
> 
> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a 
> grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

It's not so much changing as reverting back to the early admiration
for Harry. As Ron commented about the Daily Prophet story near the end
of OotP, "He's 'The Boy Who Lived' again now, though, isn't he?" The
Ministry (and the Daily Prophet coverage) had tried to portray Harry
as having delusions--including, say, the return of Voldemort. But now
that they've had to recognize Voldemort's return, they're trying to
swing the boy-champion back into their camp.
> 
> 
> Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
> Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you think 
> this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
> that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore 
> refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
> between them?

A mixture of both. The immediate rift is over Scrimgeour's plans to
use Harry and Dumbledore's goal of protecting him. But I think they
have longer disagreements. As a career Auror, Scrimgeour very likely
agreed with--may even have used--the MM's allowing Aurors to use the
Unforgiveables during the last Wizarding War. Dumbledore, on the other
hand, most likely opposed the use of these weapons which the Death
Eaters favored.
> 
> Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the new 
> security measures?  What do you think she said that is hidden from 
> us?
> 
If she feels reassured, it's probably only because the security
measures show that the Ministry and the general population are
recognizing the crisis. After what her son and daughter-in-law
suffered, and now her grandson's contribution, she surely has a more
realistic view of Voldemort's strategy. She was probably pointing out
that Neville is one of the Hogwarts students who could be in danger
(especially because he's a housemate of Harry).

> Q5:  Do these measures seem reasonable?
> 
It depends on who's using these spells, how many people have been
taught to use them, and/or what objects they've been applied to. Here
I'm referring to things--buildings, rooms, pieces of furniture,
etc.--which have been enchanted.
> 
> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 
> 
I think he's forcing in the Dursleys' faces--or down their throats, if
they'd open them--how much they've done wrong to Harry. He's certainly
realized for some time that the Dursleys had mistreated Harry, but he
was in a position where he thought this might be Harry's ONLY chance
to live until he comes into his power and is taught enough to help him
face Voldemort.

> Q9:  Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12 
> Grimmauld Place?  Why not move someplace friendlier?  Do they 
> secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black?  <g>  Is it because Phineas's 
> portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?
> 
Phineas' portrait can be useful, as we've seen in OotP. The problem is
that it's so hard for the Order to be truly *sure* that they and their
mission are safe with someone or in any specific place. 12 Grimmauld
Place is a haven, is someplace they've come to rely on, and it's not
that easy for a secret force to find another one.

> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?
> 
I expect Harry to return to the house in Book 7. As the Order
headquarters and his property, it's the obvious choice for his London
"center of operations" in his mission to find the Horcruxes and
confront Voldemort. If he and Ginny, for example, spend time together
there, it can definitely change the atmosphere. Here, he could also
have a chance to get acquainted with the younger, less tortured
heritage of his godfather.

> Q11:  Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something more 
> significant?

Greed is pretty much Vernon's normal reaction, yes. Harry is the heir
to a piece of property--that would get his attention!
> 
> Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At 
> this point, why say it at all?  

Because with Voldemort's return, and the WW's recognizing that, the
situation has come to a crisis. 5 years ago, he still thought that he
could best protect Harry by keeping things calm, at least on the
surface, with Vernon and Petunia. The thin coating of a typical
situation has been torn off, so now there's nearly nothing to lose by
confronting them.
> 
> Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of age" 
> that would cause the protection to end?  
> 
The protection has worked both ways: sharing the home has protected
not only Harry, but the Dursleys themselves. 

> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?
> 
I'm convinced she still knows something we (and Harry) don't--whether
it was something she found out from Lily, from the letter that
Dumbledore left with Harry, or a combination. She's tried to bury this
beneath her conscious memory for about sixteen years, but these events
bring it to the front of her mind.

> Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?

Yes--whether "be allowed" means that the Dursleys allow him, or
whether they don't have much choice, is open to question! I also think
that in this return, Harry will learn something important, probably
related to what his aunt knows.

Well, I've been speculating. Now I get to read other people's
contributions!

Amontillada






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Mon Nov  7 18:57:05 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:57:05 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <dko70d+unj4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005a01c5e3cd$0c9bdff0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142585

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" <c.john at i...> 
wrote:
>
> It seems to me that a number of people hate Snape due to his 
treatment 
> of his students. Within HPFGU there seems to be an acceptance that 
> Snape hates Harry due to his old prejudice towards his father, and 
that 
> this is vaguely understandable. 

<SNIP>

If, on the other hand, you mean that there is some consensus that, 
in some vague way, Snape's treatment of Harry is "understandable" in 
the sense of being "ameliorated in guilt or fault," I would say that 
absolutely no such consensus exists, even on a very imprecise 
level.  Certainly I do not accord any amelioration of guilt to Snape 
in any way, his actions and attitudes are absolutely and utterly 
unforgiveable.  Nor do I think Alla or Nora or many other people who 
find Snape's actions objectionable would agree that there is any 
kind of consensus on the issue whatsoever (and they may of course 
disagree with me on that one).


Lupinlore


Sherry now:

Absolutely not.  Any grown man who routinely abuses a child, simply on the
grounds of who his father was, is immature in the extreme.  Harry often acts
with more maturity on that one than does Snape.  After all, he dislikes
Snape, but until the end of HBP, he tried to believe, at least, that Snape
might be on the side of good.  Thinking of how he tried to tell Snape about
the vision of Sirius in OOTP, hoping Dumbledore might be right about Snape,
and that Snape might help.  Whether or not Snape turns out to be DDM, ESE,
or just OFH, his behavior toward Harry is ridiculous and childish and not
worthy of my respect or acceptance or understanding.

Sherry, completely agreeing with lupinlore




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Nov  7 18:53:22 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:53:22 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko7r2+3cno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142586

RavenclawBookworm [henceforth RB]:
> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a 
> grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

SSSusan:
You know, I'm really anxious to hear others' thoughts on this.  My 
*gut* reaction is that it's a change on *both* levels.  We know that 
Fudge has *admitted* that Voldy is back, and we know that Scrimgeour 
is anxious to get Harry on board with the Ministry, so I think that 
does speak to a change at the Ministry level.  

I guess the reason I suspect there's also a change at the grassroots 
level is what happens to Harry on the Hogwarts Express and in the 
Gryffindor common room -- all the attention paid to him everywhere he 
goes, with whisperings about "the Chosen One" (iirc), with girls like 
Romilda Vane falling all over themselves to be near him.  Instead of 
the rumblings & grumblings type of attention he got in CoS and after 
Cedric's death, *this* time it has a feel of true 
celebrity  "worship."  It feels respectful, in other words.  And I 
*do* think that likely came from things said at these students' 
homes, which would indicate a grassroots-level change.

RB:
> Q6:  We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave.  In 
> what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?

SSSusan:
Ugh.  I'm not sure I want to know! :shudders:  But then again... in a 
sick-curious kind of way... I do wonder what things they're capable 
of doing.  I mean, are they capable of scoping out a scene; can their 
eyes be "useful" in that kind of way?  Can they actually strangle 
someone or something that *physical*?


R/B:
> Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason to 
> believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

SSSusan:
Heck, I think he's just good and tired of being disappointed by now.


RB:
> Dumbledore politely avoids a confrontation with Vernon by expecting
> manners: "...let us assume that you have invited me warmly into your
> house." ...The Headmaster forces the Dursleys to sit down by moving 
> the sofa then conjures glasses and mead for everyone. When the 
> Dursleys try to ignore them, the glasses keep bumping them in the 
> head. For the next two and a half pages, Dumbledore speaks directly 
> to Harry and completely ignores the Dursleys. 
>
> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

SSSusan:
Heh heh.  I know some posters believe DD was out of line, but not 
me.  I squealed with delight as this scene progressed.  And one 
reason I did so is that DD *was* polite.  Yes, he made the 
couch "seat" the Dursleys against their will; yes, he made the 
glasses smack 'em in the head; but by and large he was calm and 
courteous, he used proper manners, he did not scream and shout when 
many people would have (as, for instance, Vernon started to do & 
typically does).  I thought he treated the Dursleys *exactly* as they 
deserved to be treated... not to mention treating Harry to the 
attention he needed and deserved in that moment as well.


RB:
> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?

SSSusan:
One thing could take him back, for sure:  the search for horcruxes.  
But I can't imagine the house ever having pleasant memories for 
anyone who knew and loved Sirius.  Huh.  Having said that, maybe 
Snape wouldn't mind the place?


> Ravenclaw Bookworm
> <with fresh coffee and a plate of fresh brownies for SSSusan and 
> Petra>

SSSusan:
Yum!  Thanks.

Siriusly Snapey Susan









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 19:05:40 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:05:40 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko8i4+5u37@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142587

> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a 
> grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

Alla:

Well, IMO we do see a change of attitude towards Harry, but I don't 
know if that is that much of the positive change. Granted, it is 
probably better that they believe Harry now, but too little too late 
comes to mind.

I think it IS probably grassroots change and Ministry probably 
decided to listen to what is staring them in the face, but just 
speculating here.

 
> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change 
your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Alla:

Actually, I am not sure what you mean here. Sorry! :-) Why would it 
change the interpretation of earlier events? Do you mean that because 
of Scrumgeour's personality traits he did some things less efectively 
than he should have done?

 
> Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the 
new 
> security measures?  What do you think she said that is hidden from 
> us?

Alla:

Hmmm, I think Augusta Longbottom is one of those who sees the grim 
reality and who realises that big war came and who knows where she 
stands. I am not sure how reassured she is by the Ministry measures, 
maybe because I was not.

It is a great point about hidding some of her quote from us. I bet 
there is something important there, or maybe this is another Mark 
Evans. :-)

I want to see what others think.



> 
> Q5:  Do these measures seem reasonable?

Alla:

Despite the fact that JKR said that she was not thinking about 
contemporary politics much when she was writing HBP, except when they 
put Stan in prison, I think she IS making fun of some RL stuff. I 
think Dumbledore makes fun of them too in chapter 4 in very " 
dumbledorish way" when he tells Harry about his favorite jam flavor 
and if he was an impostor, he would have researched everything about 
the person he was going to impostor ( paraphrase).

Those measures are micro measures to me, desperate attempts to 
reassure population when nothing is being done on macro level, so to 
speak. Am I making sense?



> Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason to 
> believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

Alla:

After OOP? I would say very very justified

> 
> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

Alla:

I mentioned earlier that I was cheering him on with an absolute 
delight, I was also thinking  that if only Snape would get something 
similar to what Dursleys got, I will be one very happy reader. :-) 
But I was very happy in any event.


> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?

Alla:

I tend to agree with  the idea that one of the horcruxes is there and 
only for that Harry may come back. I doubt that anything will ever 
change an atmosphere in the house.


> Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the 
> Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's 
> orders to Kreacher still apply?

Alla:

I don't think that it matters in any event, because I doubt that JKR 
will make Kreacher betray the Order again, since it already happened 
and we will sort of be expecting it.


 
> Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At 
> this point, why say it at all?  

Alla:

Believe me, I would LOVE to know to answer to this question too. 
There had been many, many explanations on the list as to why Order 
had been allowed to intervene only at the end of OOP. JKR did not 
give any in HBP, didn't she?

So, the way I read the book, I do NOT see any reason why Dumbledore 
could not have done it five years ago. But better late than never, I 
suppose.



> Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?

Alla:

I am positive he will because Dumbledore wanted him to and as we know 
Harry is " Dumbledore man through and through". :-)


Alla,

who wants to thank Susan/RB for the questions  and who skipped some 
to see what others think first.







From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov  7 18:56:58 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:56:58 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511070227t38377865y58829b71eb84e2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dko81q+dds7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142588

Maria:
Why was Voldemort unable to kill Harry? I know we were originally 
told that it was because his mother died to save him, but surely 
Lily wasn't the only mother who did that!! There must have been more 
to it.
<snip>


MercuryBlue:
No, Lily probably wasn't the only mother to throw herself in front 
of her child, but she was certainly the only one who was given the 
choice to save herself, almost certainly the only one who worked out 
a spell beforehand to make her death count for something, and 
DEFINITELY the only one who made the spell work. Otherwise Voldemort 
wouldn't have ever thought about killing Lily before Harry. We don't 
know much about the spell, but there's an excellent theory over at 
www.redhen-publications.com/Potterverse.html. Among many other 
excellent theories.

MercuryBlue








From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Mon Nov  7 19:10:49 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:10:49 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dko1gj+tkvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko8rq+c94i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142589

lealess: 
> 
> Snape has long hair for the same reason that cops have mustaches: to 
> hide any hint of emotion.  On the other hand, he may have had long 
> hair as a 1970s working class youth, and just decided he liked the 
> style.
> 
> Sirius may have kept his long hair from Azkaban because of 
depression 
> or general apathy.  

Lucianam:

What about long hair being mysterious (in Snape's case)?? I think it 
is, not only it instantly makes you a better Occlumens - hides 
emotions, as lealess said - but keeps your features in the shadows. 
Only I don't know if Snape likes to keep his face in the shadows 
because he thinks he's ugly or because he likes the Mystery aura. I 
suspect it's the second reason, Snape doesn't strike me as someone 
who's unconfortable with his looks.

On the contrary! He has a fashion sense, doesn't he? Always in black, 
imposing (ahem! billowing) robes. Goes with the hair. And JKR said:

"...I know all about Snape, and he wasn't about to put on a turban."

So he doesn't like to look ridiculous. He likes his little black 
number and his shoulder-lenght hair (it is shoulder lenght right???). 
I think it's a style statement. And I suspect he does wash his hair, 
he must, with all the fumes and spilling from the cauldrons. If he 
didn't wash frequently, Harry would say he smelled. Maybe his hair is 
really really oily and no matter how many times he washes it... 
permanent bad hair day?

About what wizards mean with long hair... Look at Bill and Molly, she 
wants to cut his hair so presumably he'll look more respectable. But 
he wears dragonhide clothes and is cool! I guess long hair for wizards 
makes a statement about the guy being cool, like Bill, or independant 
and unique, like Dumbledore. IMHO both Snape and Sirius fall on the 
independant/unique type. I'm still waiting for more cool, long-haired 
young wizards to show up in the books...

Oh! I must not forget:
ellecain:

>> <pause to drool over handsome pre-Azkaban Sirius with misty eyed
>> expession on face>

> colebiancardi: I'll join you :-)

Lucianam:
Joins both. Only I also drool on post-Azkaban Sirius (after he had a 
few meals).

I rather prefer Sirius with the long hair and the stubble... I feel 
guilty because that's what he wore when he was depressed (laughs but 
is aware that she is very, very selfish to think like that).

May I take this opportunity to applaud the highly competent person who 
came up with Movie!Snape's visual concept. When I think they could 
have followed Mary Grandpre's drawings!! Movie Snape is just spot on - 
hair included.

Lucianam







From lawrence81 at iwon.com  Mon Nov  7 19:07:06 2005
From: lawrence81 at iwon.com (lawrence81 at iwon.com)
Date: Mon,  7 Nov 2005 14:07:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod )
Message-ID: <20051107190706.37B1D124AF@email.iwon.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142590

Could one not argue that art, music, fiction, poetry, drama, and the like are about as close as we Muggles can get to magic, and that a culture that had the real thing wouldn't have as much use for substitutes?

One might argue that JKR is not giving a travelogue, but telling a story, and is not showing us more of Wizardling culture than is necessary to advance the story. Absence of presence is not the same thing as the presence of absense, as Katherine Kurtz said of the (non)appearance of Jews in her Deryni stories (which did explicitly contain both Christianity and Islam, and you can't have either of them without Jews around somewhere.)


Lawrence81







From meriaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 19:29:33 2005
From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:29:33 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko9ut+p33r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142591

Meri here, snipping rbookworm46's summary and attempting to answer 
some of the questions, which were v. thorough: 

> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change 
your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Meri - It makes me wonder how much of Fudge's line (following the 
events of GoF) that Scrimegour bought. As the head of the Auror 
department, he was in a positon to see some of the inconsistencies 
of the events of Order and previous books, and hopefully as skilled 
an Auror as he seems to be he picked up on them. I at least hope he 
had suspicions about the dementors attacking Harry, but due to the 
fact that he still had a job at the ministry shows that he didn't 
make too much noise about anything. He seems like a strong guy, and 
as Bill Clinton says, "When people feel uncertain they would rather 
have someone who is stong and wrong than someone who is weak and 
right." I wonder if he picked up on Kingsley's misdirection of the 
search for Sirius, and whether or not he had anything to say about 
Harry's treatment by the wizengamot. 
 
> Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
> Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you 
think 
> this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
> that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and 
Dumbledore 
> refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
> between them?

Meri - This has been mentioned before, but I think that there is 
good evidence to Scrimegour being a different kind of incompetent 
than Fudge is. Where Fudge was an indecisive bumbler, Scrimegour is 
a decisive one. He has clear ideas and is keen to be seen doing 
something about the LV problem, but anything is better than nothing 
and it doesn't matter if what he's doing is actually helping.  
Instead of doing the "right things", like sending more envoys to the 
giants, werewolves and other magical beings, he is doing "wrong 
things", like arresting and holding innocent people without trial 
(like Stan Shunpike). He actually reminds me a little bit of Sirius' 
description of Barty Crouch Senior, when he was in charge of Magical 
Law Enforcement: tough, harsh and unfair, using any means to achieve 
his ends, throwing people to Azkaban without trial, etc. I can see 
why DD and Scrimegour wouldn't get along, they have an almost 
inevitable personality clash. I'm just very impressed that Harry saw 
through it. He's pretty perceptive at times. 
  
> Q6:  We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave.  In 
> what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?

Meri - I don't know about y'all, but I would be scared to death if I 
saw one of those things coming at me on a dark winter's night. Mass 
Muggle killings perhaps? 

> Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason 
to 
> believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

Meri - Absolutely. This is the first time he and DD have been 
together since that awful night when DD told him about the prophecy. 
Harry probably still hasn't gotten used to having Reliable!
Dumbledore back yet. 

> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

Meri - Some of his finest moments. It is a testament to DD's 
character that he can be plesant (if not entirely kind) and civil 
(if also outright sarcastic) to the Dursleys, people who have abused 
and neglected Harry, who he has come to love so much. The glasses 
clinking their heads? Genius, and a subtle way to show how rude the 
Dursleys can be. Simple politeness is not in their vocabularies. I 
mean, come on, the man offered you a drink! 

> Q9:  Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12 
> Grimmauld Place?  Why not move someplace friendlier?  Do they 
> secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black?  <g>  Is it because 
Phineas's 
> portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?

Meri - All the Anti-Muggle charms and spells will probably make it 
(ahem) attractive to use, as does Phineus's portrait, though with DD 
dead now, who knows if the Order will even need that line of 
communication anymore. What if Hogwarts' new head is hostile to the 
Order? That could become a significant liability. And also even with 
Kreacher safely ensconced in Hogwarts, the other Black relatives 
could very well have a way in, so it might be safer to get a new HQ. 

> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?

Meri - Anything? Yes. The search for the Horcruxes. I fall firmly 
into the RAB = Regulus Black, locket that no one can open = LV's 
missing horcrux camp. Plus he might want to pick up some of Sirius' 
things to remember him by. And quite frankly, who knows what's in 
that dreary old house? I would guess any number of useful items that 
could aid in the Horcrux hunt. 
 
> Q11:  Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something 
more 
> significant?

Meri - I think all Vernon heard was "godfather dead" which means 
pain and misery for Harry, which he would rejoice in, and "house" 
which means Harry has someplace other than Privet Drive to live in, 
which would make him happy as well. 
 
> Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At 
> this point, why say it at all?  
> 
> Q14:  Will there be consequences for either Harry or Dudley in 
> Dumbledore's having done this?  

Meri, taking the last two together - Because we've been waiting to 
hear it for so long? I suppose it is better late than never, but 
harsh as this sounds, Harry's treatment by the Dursleys helped to 
develop his strength of character, his compassion, his ability to 
recognize distress in others and his desire to help people. It was 
literally the school of hard knocks for Harry, and though he 
deserved to be living with his loving mother and father, his 
treatment by the Dursleys has actually helped him to appreciate the 
love he has now: Ron and the Weasleys, Hermione, Lupin, Ginny, etc. 
Besides, DD may very well have felt, and rightly so, a responsiblity 
for Harry's painful early years and wanted to make ammends such as 
he can. Besides, the Dursleys are so rarely called on their bad 
behavoir that it had to happen sometime. As for Dudley, it's almost 
impossible to teach an old dog new tricks, but they did manage to 
get the weight off of him, it might just be possible to beat the 
spoiled brat out of him, too. Metaphorically speaking, of course. 
 
> Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of 
age" 
> that would cause the protection to end?  

Meri - Just like turning 18 in the RW (which is when your parents 
can no longer make legal, medical or other official decisions for 
you) in the WW it seems to mean that you are no longer under your 
parents' protection. You can defend yourself with a wand, no longer 
have to attend schoo and don't have to rely on anyone else for 
magic. The protection probably ends for these reasons, Harry can now 
protect himself. 

> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

Meri - Because no one has ever called her on Harry's treatment 
before. She was probably embarrassed to have lost face in front of 
anybody, including a wizard like DD, and Lily (and anything to do 
with Lily) is a touchy subject to her. 

> Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?

Meri - Yes, and I can't wait to see that last confrontation with 
them and Harry. We've been promised by JKR: What's the deal with 
Petunia and her relationship with Lily? What did Dudley see when he 
got demented almost two years ago? Who gets to do magic late in 
life? And what was in that letter that DD left with baby Harry? 
We've been promised and I expect her to make good! 

Meri 






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov  7 18:29:31 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:29:31 -0000
Subject: Lilly and James - Harry as Head Boy
In-Reply-To: <dkmrfr+7bpk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko6eb+f8up@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142592

> Erica:
>Do you not have to be a prefect in order to become Head Boy?

MercuryBlue:
Didn't JKR say it doesn't matter?

> Juli: 
> > > I do believe Harry will become a Head Boy, that is if he 
returns
> > > to Hogwarts. He may not be an O student all the way, but I 
think
> > > he's above average, he doesn't get into trouble so often 
(unless 
> > > you're counting the number of times he's trying to save the 
world
> > > or his friends), he's well-liked...


MercuryBlue:
One, he's not going back. Two, as Head Boy he'd be enforcing the 
school rules. The same school rules he's got such a lovely long 
record of ignoring. Three, no matter what Dumbledore said about not 
making Harry a prefect because he had enough responsibility to deal 
with already, McGonagall's in charge now, and McGonagall isn't 
likely to give that sort of responsibility to someone who doesn't 
recognize her authority. Or who appears not to recognize her 
authority. You'll notice her attitude toward Harry changed abruptly 
when he said he wasn't telling her what he and Dumbledore had been 
up to. Harry was obeying a higher authority than McGonagall just 
then, but to McGonagall, it probably looked like Harry couldn't care 
less about her authority.

Oh, and...

> Lucianam:
> I think a good explanation is one I read in fanfic (the Shoebox 
> Project), the authors - ladyjaida and dorkorific -  had the idea 
> James was made Head Boy because he saved Snape's life.
> 
> I liked that idea, it explains why Lupin wasn't made Head Boy. 
It'd 
> be the logic thing, wouldn't it? (again if you look at Percy's 
> example)
> 
> Saving Snape, James proved to be selfless and brave, and probably 
> Dumbledore decided those qualities were more important than 
> the 'regular' Prefect-towards-Head Boy procedures.

MercuryBlue:
That doesn't make sense, though. Sure, James demonstrated his 
sterling qualities by rescuing Snape, but it was James's best friend 
that got Snape into the situation, and James had a detention record 
just as long as Sirius's. Oh, and the incident clearly didn't become 
common knowledge. Whatever made James Head Boy material MUST have 
been common knowledge. Otherwise it looks like Dumbledore was 
rewarding James for defusing a situation that James was partly 
responsible for setting up.

I like the idea that Head Boy == Valedictorian. That explains how 
James, who we know was among the best in the year if not actually 
THE best, could achieve the post, when other more rule-abiding of 
his classmates were shut out. It would also mean Harry hasn't got a 
chance. He did fail out of a couple subjects, after all. This 
doesn't quite equal what we've seen of Head Boy Percy, but it could 
be that Percy's authority as Head Boy is the same as Percy's 
authority as prefect, just with different lettering on the badge.

MercuryBlue









From hitchyker at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 20:07:10 2005
From: hitchyker at gmail.com (Collin M)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:07:10 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoc5e+rntt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142593

rbookworm46:

*snip chapter summary*

> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a 
> grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

I'd say it was a grassroots thing.  Since the ministry didn't until
very recently even acknowledge the existence of the hall of prophecy
and nobody in the ministry is allowed to talk about what happened
there, it wouldn't make much sense if they were spreading the word
that Harry was "the chosen one."  I suppose it is possible that they
were secretly spreading the rumors while officially denying them, as
part of Scrimgeour's later bid to use Harry to make the ministry look
good, but it seems foolish to try to do something like that before he
has gotten Harry to sign off on it.  I think Scrimgeour would get
Harry on board first and then spread the rumor's in order to avoid
exactly the situation he ends up in, where Harry, popularly considered
the one can defeat Voldemort, won't condone the actions of the
ministry.  Since Scrimgeour doesn't convince Harry and that situation
does occur, it suggests that Scrimgeour was just trying to jump on the
"chosen one" bandwagon, and that it was not orchestrated by the ministry.

> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Someone in one of the previous chapter discussions pointed out that we
already knew who Scrimgeour was based on some dialog in OP7.  I had
completely forgotten this by the time I first read the chapter though.
 However, I don't know how much you can assess from this information,
because we've seen both good and bad come out of the ministry. 
Clearly he has to know his magic to be an Auror, based on what we've
learned from Harry's own ambitions to be one. But his proficiency at
magic still doesn't tell us anything about his character, so in the
end it didn't affect my assessment of that.

> Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
> Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you think 
> this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
> that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore 
> refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
> between them?

Fudge only mentions the Harry issue in HBP1.  Another possible rift
could be Scrimgeour's exclusion from the Order's activities.  Since we
 know from OP7 that Scrimgeour was questioning Kingsley Shacklebolt
and Tonks (presumably about their search for Sirius) and that
Shacklebolt had been feeding ministry information about Sirius  being
in Tibet, but that in HBP1 Fudge knows that Sirius was killed at the
MoM, it seems, depending on exactly what the ministry knows about what
happened at the end of OotP, that Scrimgeour would have at least some
strong suspicions that Shacklebolt was lying to him.  If he knows that
Shacklebolt and others were working with the Order, does he resent
Dumbledore's subversion of his employees?  He appoints Shacklebolt to
guard the Prime Minister.  Does this mean everything is OK between
them or is this appointment a way to keep Shacklebolt away from
Dumbledore?  Or are the ministry wizards who were working for the
Order part of the inquiry that we never hear of again? 

> Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason to 
> believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

I don't think that Dumbledore has ever said he would do something and
not do it, but I think it's indicative of Harry's feelings about his
own behavior at the end of OotP that he's worried that Dumbledore
won't come.

> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

I think it's hilarious and they've got a lot more coming to them where
that came from.  :)

> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?

If RAB is Regulus and the locket or anything important is there, I
think he will go back.  It could be a pretty poignant moment in book 7
for Harry to have to go dig through 12 Grimmauld Place.
 
> Q11:  Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something more 
> significant?
>
> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?
> 
> Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?4

Dumbledore makes a point of ensuring that Harry can return one last
time, and there's this mysterious thing between him and Petunia that
hasn't been explained yet (the odd flushing), so I think he needs to
return one more time.  The Dursley's role in the books has been
decreasing in the last books, but in book 7 Harry will be in an odd
situation with them.  To the WW, he will be a legal adult, but to the
muggles he will still be a minor and Vernon Dursley could cause him
some problems if he decided he wanted to.  (I don't know about laws of
inheritance and minors and guardians etc. so I can't speculate too
much.)  I think this is the first the Dursley's have ever heard about
Harry's wealth.  Harry says back in one of the early books that Vernon
Dursley's distaste for the WW wouldn't extend to money, and his
reaction to the news of Harry's inheritance seems like a motive for
wanting to give Harry trouble (not to mention general
mean-spiritedness and resentment toward Harry).

> Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the 
> Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's 
> orders to Kreacher still apply?

My impression was that the purpose in sending him to Hogwarts to help
in the kitchens was to keep him away from anyone who could benefit
from information Kreacher might have in the first place, but House
elves certainly seem to be able to stretch the rules quite a bit
(Kreachers passing out info in OotP and Dobby's warning in CoS) except
when given very direct orders (Harry's order to shut up which Kreacher
wanted and tried to break but couldn't) so it seems like the safest
thing to do would be to order him not to speak or write anything at
all.  (They could have just offed him OotP, but no...  :)  )
 

Collin









From sherriola at earthlink.net  Mon Nov  7 20:13:58 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:13:58 -0800
Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?RE:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3=2C_WILL_AND_WON'T_?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000801c5e3d7$ca64bac0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142594

Snipping excellent Summary:

Sherry says:

Let me just start out by saying this is one of my favorite all time favorite
chapters in all the books, and probably my favorite in HBP.

Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a 
grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

Sherry
i think it's not so much a change, as a return to the way the WW felt about
Harry before OOTP.  Remember how he was greeted the first time he went to
the Leaky Cauldron.  The same for The ministry, I'd say, because they were
the same toward him before Fudge's denial of Voldemort's return.  The Chosen
One is a bit more than the past, boy who Lived, but I think it's pretty much
the same attitude.

Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your 
interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Sherry
i didn't really think much about it in terms of the past.  i thought it
might affect the handling of the Voldemort problem, more law and Order, and
potentially abuse civil liberties.  (Does the WW even have civil liberties?)
And the arrest of Stan shows that is exactly how it went.

Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you think 
this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore - 
that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore 
refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
between them?

Sherry
I think that's part of it, but I'd also guess that Dumbledore expected there
to be problems with him.  Again, the arrest of Stan Shunpike would be
something DD would dislike, and probably is only the tip of the iceberg.
After all, Harry knows Stan, so we know about it.  

Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the new 
security measures?  What do you think she said that is hidden from 
us?

Sherry
I don't think anything in particular is hidden.  I think Harry just needed
something for the bottom of Hedwig's cage.  Having had birds before, I'd
have used the Daily Prophet too.

Q6:  We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave.  In 
what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?

Sherry
No ideas on how they are using them, but the first thing I thought of was
the old horror movie, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.  Shudder.

Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason to 
believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

Sherry
I think that in Harry's situation, I'd be concerned. But more from the idea
that the message could have been faked in some way, after the end of OOTP.

Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

Sherry
YIPPEE!!!!  I loved, loved, loved Dumbledore's behavior.  Harry thinks, as
he coming downstairs, that past experience has taught him to stay out of the
reach of Uncle Vernon, telling me that he *has* been physically abused in
some way by Vernon.  Dumbledore's handling of the Dursleys was brilliant.  I
think it was good for Harry to be present for it.  i laughed and laughed
during this chapter, and i love reading it again and again.  After all that
Harry has suffered at the hands of the Dursleys, i was saying, GO
DUMBLEDORE!  At last, Harry could feel that someone knew and cared about
what he'd been through.  

Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At 
this point, why say it at all?  

Sherry
Well, it needed to be said, someday.  and I really think it's more for
Harry, to give Harry confidence that someone has seen and cared.  It seems
to help bond him closer to Dumbledore.  I doubt any of it ever gets through
to the Dursleys, but it matters to Harry.

Sherry




From ornawn at 013.net  Mon Nov  7 20:12:08 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:12:08 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
Message-ID: <dkoceo+bnob@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142595

>Lucianam:
>Maybe in the WW it is absolutely necessary that you have a body in
>order to have any sort of memorial service, goodbye ceremony,
>whatever. How strange of them.

>Not that I ever understood JKR's take on Sirius. She practically had
>him star two books - PoA and OotP - and now she's practically
>ignored his death in HBP. Sirius's appearances in the HP series have
>been sort like a rollercoaster.

>IMO she's very inconsistent in her management of Sirius (I'm not
>saying she manages him badly, on the contrary. Maybe it's all the
>contradictions that make him such an interesting puzzle?)

Orna:
I also don't know how to figure out JKR's management of Sirius.

I had the feeling, that Sirius in many ways had no body ? he is 
mentioned for his motorbike ? in PS, then in PoA, even though, he is 
the main figure ? we get a distorted picture of him ? a mass-
murderer, viciously entering Hogwarts, and mostly disguised as a 
dog. Or - the Potter's best man, friend - he seems always defined by 
his relation to somebody/something else. There are a few minutes, 
where he is human, lovable, those few minutes, where Harry can dream 
of leaving the Dursleys. And then he is on the run again, featured 
only by his notes. In the OotP, he his captive in his family-house, 
which serve as headquarters - but he is again out of focus. 
Ironically, when he appears in full focus - it is in a false vision, 
luring him to his death. Featuring outside ? he appears as a dog on 
the platform, or as a head in the common-room fire. Once he leaves 
his place and appears whole, human and vigorous ? he dies ? without 
leaving a body, a funeral, a memorial ceremony.

As if for some reason JKR doesn't give Sirius the full power to be 
alive for himself , and so his death can't be fully acknowledged.

Actually, it features well with his tragic place in his family 
picture ? he doesn't belong (to the set), is wiped of the picture.

Orna 











From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Mon Nov  7 20:16:23 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:16:23 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkocmn+k90d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142596

rbookworm46 at y wrote:
> 
> 
> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this 
a 
> grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

Lucianam:
Nope, IMO the old Ministry is just trying to ride the Harry Popular 
wave. Mind you, it seems the Ministry themselves, in alliance with 
the Daily Prophet, started the whole Chosen One campaign.
 
> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change 
your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Lucianam:
Ha ha. Let's have some fun! What if Amelia Bones, who was 
Scrimgeour's boss and possibly a candidate for Minister, was 
murdered so he could be Minister instead? I'm saying this because I 
didn't like Scrimgeour and want him to be a baddie, I know I don't 
have much canon evidence apart from this coincidence. And maybe the 
fact he's a friend of Cormac McLaggen's uncle and Cormac's a really 
weird guy who almost got Harry killed, and was pratically happy Ron 
had been poisoned.

> Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
> Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you 
think 
> this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
> that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and 
Dumbledore 
> refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
> between them?

Lucianam:
I suppose DD could have been angry with Scrimgeour because of the 
leaks on the Chosen One story. After all, how come the Prophet ever 
heard about it? The people who knew about the prophecy were DD, 
Voldemort, Snape, the Death Eaters who were in the MoM battle and 
apparently the members of the Order (not sure about this one). So 
how come the Prophet knew??? Not the Ministry's employees's fault, 
it seems, remember the 'agitated Obliviator' who wouldn't talk. 
I have an idea, maybe the Death Eaters were interrogated? If they 
babbled, Scrimgeour heard the Prophecy story. Possibly he had the 
idea of giving it to the Daily Prophet, with the intention of... 
playing it to his advantage, or is he evil and has other plans?

> Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the 
new 
> security measures?  What do you think she said that is hidden from 
> us?

Lucianam:
No idea, good point. But she did tell the reporters about Neville 
being in the MoM battle and being a friend of Harry's. I think that 
could be dangerous to Neville, if people decide to get information 
from him. It also told Voldemort (he does read the papers I believe) 
that Harry and Neville are friends, if Snape and Bellatrix have 
failed to notice/report that. It's the sort of thing Voldemort likes 
to be aware of.
  
> 
> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 

Lucianam:
In the Dursley's house? I liked the glasses. They were nasty but so 
are the Dursleys!
About the Kreacher thing, I don't think DD is 100% right. If Harry 
is not Kreacher's master, but someone else is, this other person 
could fool them. All they'd have to do is tell Kreacher to obey 
Harry and follow his every order. And, of course, not to anyone his 
true master is not Harry.

I'm enjoying this Chapter discussion a lot, I'll get back to the 
other questions as soon as more people answer!!!! (want to check out 
their answers, <g>)

Lucianam






From darqali at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 20:19:08 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:19:08 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
Message-ID: <dkocrs+5qe8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142597

I for one don't see the WW as lacking creativity or being "backward" 
compared to the Muggle world.

Some time ago I observed that entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was 
in the plumbing of a girl's toilet, but that the Chamber was built 
into the origional castle by one of the founders {S.Slythern} about 
1000 years in the past!  And, the "monster" basilisk snake creature 
got all around the castle by slithering through the plumbing pipes 
....

Someone countered that the original entrance might have been 
elsewhere and incorporated into the toilet fixtures when the castle 
was later up-dated to include modern plumbing .... but how do we 
square that with the little snake on the pipes, which Harry spoke to 
in order to activate the opening?  Only a Parseltongue could have 
created such a magical device.

No, clearly Wizards invented plumbing many years prior to its use by 
the Muggle world.  And Wizard plumbing just *works*, because the 
pipes stay clear by *magic*; wizards don't even need "plumbles" 
because in the normal course of events, their pipes don't clog up 
..... we only see a problem when an object of Dark Magic is thrown 
into the works [Ginny Weasley caused the toilet to overflow when she 
tried to flush Tom Riddle's diary .... but Tom wasn't about to let it 
go out to the lake, was he? ]

Now, my theory is that some poor squib had to make his way in the 
Muggle world, being unable to use magic, and he became the first to 
introduce modern plumbing to Muggles.  [We may even know his name 
.... Thomas Crapper, was it not, credited with "inventing" the flush 
toilet?  But he must have been just a poor squib, passing off a long 
held Wizzard technology as his own invention ... :-}  ].  Of course, 
our Muggle plumbing has no magic to keep it going so we need 
"plumbles" to sort things out when pipes  clog up and tiolets up-
chuck their contents.....

And so for many other things we see the Wizarding World use, that are 
also used by Muggles:  Why assume Muggles had them first?   For 
according to canon, Wizards had indoor plumbing 1000 years ago ....

Darqali






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 19:55:43 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:55:43 -0000
Subject: Why does Kreacher have to obey Harry?
In-Reply-To: <dko6l2+8ttq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkobfv+u8ep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142598

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...>
wrote:
>
> 
> > Carol notes:
> > > I think the fact that Kreacher has to do what Harry orders
> > > indicates not only that Sirius's will is valid but that he
> > > is truly dead.
> > 

> Lucianam:
> 
> Just to stick to details, I don't think Kreacher obeying 
> Harry's orders proves Harry is his rightful master. It doesn't 
> prove Sirius is  dead, either.
> 
> Suppose ... Voldemort wants to trick the Order into thinking 
> Harry really inherited Grimmauld Place. All Voldemort has to 
> do is have Kreacher's new master, Bellatrix, order Kreacher 
> to follow every order Harry gives him. ...
> 
> If Sirius is alive and for some reason he wants people to think
> he is dead, all he has to do is, similarly, tell Kreacher to 
> follow Harry's orders. ...
> 
> Just a couple of annoying thoughts!
> 
> Lucianam

bboyminn:

Maybe we should define /death/. In the real world death is relatively
simple; when you are fully and completely dead, you are dead. Or
perhaps, for a more formal definition, when your soul leaves your body
and never comes back.

But in the magical wizard world it's not quite the same. True, in
general, according to JKR's principles of operation of the Wizard
World; dead is dead. But Sirius died under special circumstances. He
has /left the mortal realm/, he has /gone beyond the Veil/, he's not
hiding out somewhere or gone on vacation, he has left the earth
totally and completely. His absents in the physical universe is as
technically dead as dead can be. 

But, again... special circumstances. Normally, the spirit leaves the
mortal realm and goes beyond the Veil leaving a body behind. Sirius
went through the Veil body and all. It could be that his living body
and united soul are trapped in the realm of the dead beyond the Veiled
Archway. Again, I proposed with the support of others that very
special circumstances might occur if Harry, inside (possessing)
Voldemort, pass beyond the Veil. Circumstances the might allow Harry
to join with Sirius and bring them both back to the land of the living.

I admit, that while I like the idea, it is pretty farfetched, and like
all my other predictions, is probably not going to happen, but in the
context of this discussion, it illustrates that Sirius's physical and
spiritual absents from this earth make him as good as dead, but at the
same time, don't eliminate the possibility of him returning. 

So, Kreacher obeying Harry is valid because, Sirius has left the
mortal realm. In other words, he is dead by all earthly definitions,
but we don't know what happens on the other side of the Veil. We don't
know what rules apply there, and that opens the possibility for
Sirius's return back to the earthly realm.

Again, I'm not saying this is fact, only that it illustrates a
possible method by which Sirius could be dead by earthly definitions,
but still able to return to the story. 

Also, keep in mind that Harry using Sirius's body in order to return
from behind the Veil and into the earthly realm, only means that
Sirius's body will return with Harry inside. Once back, after Harry
abondons Sirius's body, Sirius could just as easily drop dead as not.
So the return of Sirius doesn't necessarily mean his return to life,
only his bodily return to the earthly realm.

So, he is gone, but not gone. And being /gone/ means Harry inherits.

Steve/bboyminn







From lawrence81 at iwon.com  Mon Nov  7 19:00:31 2005
From: lawrence81 at iwon.com (lawrence81 at iwon.com)
Date: Mon,  7 Nov 2005 14:00:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lilly and James - Harry as Head Boy
Message-ID: <20051107190031.EC23E124AF@email.iwon.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142599




Juli: 
> > I do believe Harry will become a Head Boy, that is if he returns to Hogwarts. He may not be an O student all the way, but I think
he's above average, he doesn't get into trouble so often (unless 
you're counting the number of times he's trying to save the world
or his friends), he's well-liked...
<SNIP>

Lawrence81:
IMHO, Harry will be too much occupied with hunting down Voldemort to be Head Boy.

That being said, I do think he will return to Hogwarts, but not as a regular Year VII/NEWTS student.  Harry needs to learn a lot more before he is ready to take Voldemort on, and Hogwarts is the major center for magical learning in the British Isles.  I think he will return as a 'special student', doing independant research in the library and recieving one-on-one instructions from teachers in the areas he especially needs.  

Lawrence81.





From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Nov  7 20:53:47 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:53:47 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <005a01c5e3cd$0c9bdff0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dkoesr+44up@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142600

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at e...> 
wrote:
>
 > Sherry now:
> 
> Absolutely not.  Any grown man who routinely abuses a child, simply 
on the
> grounds of who his father was, is immature in the extreme.  Harry 
often acts
> with more maturity on that one than does Snape.  After all, he 
dislikes
> Snape, but until the end of HBP, he tried to believe, at least, 
that Snape
> might be on the side of good.  Thinking of how he tried to tell 
Snape about
> the vision of Sirius in OOTP, hoping Dumbledore might be right 
about Snape,
> and that Snape might help.  Whether or not Snape turns out to be 
DDM, ESE,
> or just OFH, his behavior toward Harry is ridiculous and childish 
and not
> worthy of my respect or acceptance or understanding.
> 
> Sherry, completely agreeing with lupinlore
>

whereas I think that Snape's behavior is not acceptable, I do think 
that Harry threw the Snape is on the Good Side belief out the window 
at the end of OotP.  Harry, despite DD's assurances that Snape was 
working for the Order and did all he could have, WANTS to hate Snape -
 Harry knows it is wrong, but he feels better about it.  Even in the 
beginning of HBP, when Snape escorts Harry to Hogwarts, Harry's 
hatred for Snape is overwheming.  Harry is quick to think the worse 
of Snape, regardless of what DD tells him.  He thinks the worse of 
Snape at Christmas time, when he snoops on Snape's and Draco's 
conversation - the first thought in Harry's head is that Snape is 
still loyal to Voldemort.  Whereas Ron, Hermione, Arthur and Lupin 
all state the obvious, which Harry refuses to see.

colebiancardi(who thinks that Harry & Snape's grudges towards each 
other are about the same size by now)









From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Nov  7 21:02:02 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:02:02 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dkocrs+5qe8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkofca+onpp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142601

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" <darqali at y...> wrote:

<big snip>

 > And so for many other things we see the Wizarding World use, that 
are 
> also used by Muggles:  Why assume Muggles had them first?   For 
> according to canon, Wizards had indoor plumbing 1000 years ago ....
> 
> Darqali


actually, the Roman Empire had plumbing over 4000 years ago.  They 
were very clean.  When the Romans withdrew from Britian, France, etc, 
that is when the locals went back to their dirty ways :)  and they 
did not fix the plumbing, aqueducts and bath houses the Romans left 
behind.

http://www.theplumber.com/eng.html

colebiancardi
(giving the Roman Empire credit where it is due :))








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov  7 21:12:09 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:12:09 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite
In-Reply-To: <005801c5e366$5a427000$758687d9@gateway>
Message-ID: <dkofv9+3a8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142602

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, <mailbox1 at t...> wrote:

mailbox 1:
> Just as an aside I have to confess to a feeling of great irritation 
that (being English), in the first book the school toilets were 
correctly known as "the girls toilets" but in every book since  they've 
been known as the "girls bathroom" when they are clearly not a bathroom 
at all.  Not a bath to be seen!
> 
> :O(

Geoff:
Perhaps in addition to the existing ban on movie contamination on the 
group, we should introduce a ban on US English contamination.
:-)

(Ducks to avoid well-aimed Websters and exits stage right)







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov  7 21:22:09 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:22:09 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dknnem+20vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkogi1+53qq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142603

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" <ellecain at y...> 
wrote:

Elyse:
> But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
> This has bothered me for a very long time. 

> But he is not the only one. Why does Sirius have long hair?

Geoff:
I thought it was blindingly obvious.

They both went to see "The Lord of the Rings" and thought that Viggo 
Mortenson and Sean Bean were projecting great images as Aragorn and 
Boromir so decided to introduce this into their own life styles....

You see, I can W.A.F.F.L.E. as well as the next person when the mood 
takes me.

Looking at some of the tricks JKR gets up to, I think there should 
also be a category R.H.U.B.A.R.B. (Red Herrings Under Beds And 
Raspberry Bushes).

Hm. Perhaps I should go back on the tablets.....
:-)







From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Nov  7 21:26:05 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:26:05 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dkogi1+53qq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkogpd+947k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142604

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at t...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" <ellecain at y...> 
> wrote:
> 
> Elyse:
> > But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
> > This has bothered me for a very long time. 
> 
> > But he is not the only one. Why does Sirius have long hair?
> 
> Geoff:
> I thought it was blindingly obvious.
> 
> They both went to see "The Lord of the Rings" and thought that 
Viggo 
> Mortenson and Sean Bean were projecting great images as Aragorn and 
> Boromir so decided to introduce this into their own life styles....
> 
> 
so I guess timeturners DO work with going into the future then?   
Argghh....I know, one liners aren't allowed, so I shall be obvious 
girl and state the HP books take place in the 1990's and LotR movies 
didn't come out until 2001.  

And I don't think Snape or Sirius are the type to see muggle movies :)

colebiancardi







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 21:27:42 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:27:42 -0000
Subject: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dko7r2+3cno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkogse+qhoc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142605


> SSSusan:
> Heh heh.  I know some posters believe DD was out of line, but not 
> me.  I squealed with delight as this scene progressed.  And one 
> reason I did so is that DD *was* polite.  Yes, he made the 
> couch "seat" the Dursleys against their will; yes, he made the 
> glasses smack 'em in the head; but by and large he was calm and 
> courteous, he used proper manners, he did not scream and shout 
when 
> many people would have (as, for instance, Vernon started to do & 
> typically does).  I thought he treated the Dursleys *exactly* as 
they 
> deserved to be treated... not to mention treating Harry to the 
> attention he needed and deserved in that moment as well.
> 


I can see why you could squeal with delight, but as for calling his 
behaviour "polite"
 Surely you must be mistaken. To come uninvited, 
without according your hosts a courtesy to deny you an entry is not 
polite in the least. To usurp their position in their own house is 
still less polite. In fact it's downright rude, just check any 
etiquette guide. Dumbledore was being about as polite as Scrimgeour 
in the Prime Minister office, and about as courteous as Voldemort 
when he insisted on observing the "niceties" of the dueling code. 
Granted, Dumbledore did the thing with his usual style yet it wasn't 
his superior manners he was demonstrating but the upper hand. 

And did you notice: Harry was not even remotely delighted with this 
little demonstration. He was anxious to leave. Wonder what he was 
reminded of. 

a_svirn







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 21:39:42 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:39:42 -0000
Subject: Whose man is Snape -repost ( by Derannimer)/ Nope, no consensus on Snape
In-Reply-To: <dkoesr+44up@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkohiu+7i7c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142606

Colebiancardi:

> whereas I think that Snape's behavior is not acceptable, I do think 
> that Harry threw the Snape is on the Good Side belief out the 
window 
> at the end of OotP.  Harry, despite DD's assurances that Snape was 
> working for the Order and did all he could have, WANTS to hate 
Snape -
>  Harry knows it is wrong, but he feels better about it.  Even in 
the 
> beginning of HBP, when Snape escorts Harry to Hogwarts, Harry's 
> hatred for Snape is overwhelming.  Harry is quick to think the 
worse 
> of Snape, regardless of what DD tells him.  He thinks the worse of 
> Snape at Christmas time, when he snoops on Snape's and Draco's 
> conversation - the first thought in Harry's head is that Snape is 
> still loyal to Voldemort.  Whereas Ron, Hermione, Arthur and Lupin 
> all state the obvious, which Harry refuses to see.
> 
> colebiancardi(who thinks that Harry & Snape's grudges towards each 
> other are about the same size by now)
>

Alla:

I think that is what Sherry meant - that Harry believed or tried to 
believe that Snape was on the side of good till the end of OOP. After 
Sirius' death Harry does hate Snape, no question about it.

I have to agree with Sherry - I remember Harry disliking Snape, but 
even when he thought that Snape was a villain, I do not remember 
Harry outright HATING him. Thinking that Snape hates Harry, yes, 
hating Snape - no. Of course I may forget something in canon and it 
may turn out that Harry indeed hated him earlier, but so far I don't 
remember it.

I have to agree with Sherry - I think in general Harry demonstrated 
more maturity towards Snape than Snape EVER did towards him. I am 
talking about cumulative behavior in all six books of course.

Oh, and of course it looks to me that everybody else missed the 
obvious about Snape, not Harry, but that is just me of course.

I think it will be a very good place to reintroduce  the post I was 
looking for a very long time.

Turns out it is in recommended posts. I should have known. :-)

For some reason I thought Annemehr was  the one who wrote it, but  it 
turns out that Derannimer is  the one.

The post was called " Whose man Snape?" The message number is 69563

In the beginning of the post she predicts that Snape was  the 
eavesdropper in Hogsmead ( me too :-)) and that Harry is going to 
react to this piece of news very badly. :-)

And here is a big quote from Deranimmer's post, which could be 
relevant.

"Harry's relationship to Snape at the end of OOP as basically a 
return to the
status quo,
it really represents, IMHO, a huge, bad change in Harry's attitude. 
Because
Harry
never really has *hated* Snape before. He's never really actively 
wished for his
ill. (Or
*wanted* him to be much worse than he was. C.S. Lewis once, 
chillingly,
described
hatred as ". . . to wish that black were a little bit blacker.") But 
I'd say
that Harry does
hate Snape now. And JKR really hits us over the head with it, doesn't 
she? "He
was
never going to forgive Snape, never?" I think she's clearly setting 
that up for
something Big; and I don't think that a gradual process of coming out 
of denial
is very
Big.

Or. . . Bangy.

So I started trying to think of possible reasons JKR really wanted 
Harry to hate
Snape.

1. The books are still too episodic to allow a big change in Harry 
and Snape's
relationship until Book Seven, and the end of the series.

I've seen this general idea expressed, but as I

A: Don't think it's accurate -- Harry and Snape's relationship *has* 
changed.

and

B: Don't want it to be accurate -- c'mon, JKR, surely you can do 
better than
that!

I am going to discount it for now.

2. JKR wants the reader to retain the ability to distrust Snape.

Eh. She surely could have done that more easily by just giving him a 
suspicious
subplot in a future book, wouldn't you think? And anyway, by 
*flagging* that
Harry
hates Snape, she makes us *less* likely to trust Harry's judgements 
about Snape,
not
more so. Or she does me, at any rate.

Which brings us to

3. It's a clever double bluff. The first four books she fooled us by 
having us
trust
Harry too much; now she's going to try and fool us by having us trust 
Harry too
little.
In other words, Severus Snape Is Ever So Evil. Harry's going to spend 
the whole
book
-- Six or Seven, take your pick, but I'd pick Six, if I had to pick 
one of them
-- but
anyway, Harry's going to spend the whole book being suspicious of 
Snape, and we
readers, or,

<Derannimer shoots another nasty look at Darrin.>

or *most* of us anyway, will be spending the whole book yelling at 
Harry to get
over
it already, Snape's not the bad guy, and Harry just thinks he is 
because he,
Harry,
hates him, Snape, a fact that JKR will have made very careful to 
continue
hitting us
over the head with.

Then it will turn out that Harry was right.

(And Darrin.)

Whoops.

(You think Derannimer is shooting nasty looks at Darrin *now*? Boy. 
You wait.)

I hate this explanation, needless to say. And it *does* seem a tad 
convoluted,
so
hopefully it may turn out not to be true.

4. JKR doesn't care so much about the readers retaining the ability 
to mistrust
Snape;
but she very much wants *Harry* to retain the ability to mistrust 
Snape.

This one is fairly self-explanatory, I think.

5. JKR is setting up Snape as a big moral challenge for Harry at some 
point in
the
series."

Alla:

Now, I cut large enough piece at the end too - not because I want to 
give anybody a wrong idea  about Derannimer's views - as she says she 
is not an ESE!Snape fan at all, on the contrary.

But simply because the main reason I quoted her post is to point out 
to her number 3 prediction.

I think it is the right one, personally. :-)



JMO,
Alla,
who thinks that Snape grudge will always be larger in size because he 
had more years to develop it, but wholeheartedly wishes that Harry 
would move past Snape and never looked back.







From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  7 21:49:08 2005
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:49:08 -0000
Subject: Felix Felicis (the whim to let Snape pass)
Message-ID: <dkoi4l+n5jj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142607

The following may have been brought up and discussed. If so it has 
slipped my attention - but here goes.

When Harry drinks from Felix Felicis, it's funny how he suddenly 
knows - or gets a feeling - what is the right thing to do.
He can't explain why he needs to go to Hagrid's for the funeral. He 
can't explain why it seems like a good idea to pass the vegetable 
patch on his way. He doesn't know why it's suddenly clear to him that 
inviting Slughorn along is the thing to do.
After drinking Felix Felicis, Harry simply has a feeling of what to 
do - and everything turns out to be good decisions.

Now - when Harry is about to follow Dumbledore to the Cave - he goes 
back to the Gryffindor Tower to get his Invicibility Cloak. And he 
tells Ron and Hermione to closely watch Snape on the Map - plus he 
tells them to drink the remains of his Felix Felicis.

On to my point.
Bloomsbury p 577 (The Phoenix Lament):
Harry: "So if Ron was watching the Room of Requirement with Ginny and 
Neville,' said Harry, turning to Hermione, 'were you - ?'
'Outside Snape's office, yes,' whispered Hermione, her eyes sparkling 
with tears, 'with Luna.'

Did Luna in fact drink from the bottle, too? Im sorry but I couldn't 
find any evidence for or against that.

<<Snip>>

p 578 (after the incident with Snape and Flitwick):
Hermione: '......snipped....but we didn't realise, Harry, we didn't 
realise, we just let Snape go.'

Were Hermione and Luna reacting the same way Harry did after taking 
in Felix Felicis? Did they act on a whim that this was the right 
thing to do - to let Snape go?
If so - here we have another point to DDM!Snape.



Just a thought.







From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 21:58:17 2005
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:58:17 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dknnem+20vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoilp+6bqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142608

 "ellecain" wrote:
>
> 
> > But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?


Lyra here:
Well, during the time Snape was growing up (the 60s and 70s), long 
hair was the fashion for young men. I expect that is the reason he 
originally had it, anyway. And as time moved on, well... let's be 
honest, time just doesn't move on for Snape. He's never let go of 
high school grudges, why should he let go of high school fashion?


>[more snips] Or is Harry overly prejudiced when he describes it as 
> greasy?

Lyra again:
Probably, since it's not described as greasy in "Spinners End" which 
is not told from Harry's point of view.

Lyra (who's brother is of Snape's generation and still wears a 
ponytail half way down his back. He's very unSnape-like, other than 
holding on to old fashions, happily)







From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Mon Nov  7 20:28:41 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:28:41 -0000
Subject: Pondering on the Prank
Message-ID: <dkoddp+s57f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142609

In my wandering on HP fandom I've found that "the Prank" (where 
Snape was tricked by Sirius Black and almost had a run in with Wolf!
Lupin) is generally analyzed from two points of views : the view 
that it was an incredibility reckless prank or the view that it was 
attempted murder on the part of Sirius Black. Another common point 
made is that it is the culmination of years of conflict/bullying 
between the Marauders and Severus Snape. Finally Sirius statement in 
PoA (that Snape deserved it) is often used as damning evidence 
(which it is) of his own immaturity and his deep and uncontrollable 
hatred of Snape. 

Now I'd just like to say that the Prank was a horrible event and I 
don't condone or support what Sirius did. 

That said I've often wondered if the Prank was more complex and 
layered then we've been led to believe.

The Prank comes across, to me, as not being part of the ongoing feud 
between the Marauders and Snape but as being a singularly unique 
event. Sirius Black, by all accounts, acted alone, without even 
informing James, against Snape. Yet the conflict with Snape seems to 
have been dominated by Snape vs. James...it is James who strikes 
first in "Snape's Worst Memory" and most of the dialogue in that 
scene involves James and not Sirius. So why did Sirius feel the urge 
to either kill or scare Snape badly in 6th year?

Now RAB stands a good chance of being Regulus Black and it could be 
that he ties in with the Prank. Wouldn't that be a motive? What if 
Sirius Black felt that Snape was luring his younger brother down the 
dark path? Sirius would have felt that the time had come for 
desperate measures and it ties in nicely with Sirius leaving home at 
16 (which occurs in the same general time as the Prank)...it could 
be that Sirius feels he's tried everything to save Regulus from his 
fate. It also explains his comment in PoA...Regulus ended up dead 
and Sirius certainly wouldn't have been forgiving if he felt Snape 
was responsible.

It also explains the odd lack of discipline around the 
Prank...Dumbledore seems to have a soft spot for kids that try to 
murder in the name of family (Draco anyone?) and the fact that 
Dumbledore didn't answer Snape in PoA when Snape claims that Sirius 
was an attempted murderer at 16 because Dumbledore understand how 
much more complex it is (whether Snape ever fully understood is 
another question). It should also be noted that if Sirius had really 
wanted Snape dead he simply wouldn't have told James
was telling 
James Sirius's way out?

Quick_Silver










From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 23:00:05 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:05 -0000
Subject: What's in a Name? (CHAPDISC - Spinner's End)
Message-ID: <dkom9l+meiv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142610

Snip most of reply
> Bart Wrote:
Snape was in love with Lily Potter.

Goddlefrood responds:

Well, as you mention, this has been discussed at length here and 
elsewhere and it is a matter that appears to have been accepted by 
fandom. There is some evidence to support it; why then did Snape 
call Lily a mudblood? This is after all one of the worst insults in 
the wizarding world. Even for a broken-hearted teenager it seems 
rather extreme to throw this loathsome insult, that is assuming that 
Snape already had some infatuation with Lily prior to the incident 
experienced in the Pensieve.

One thing that I find interesting about Snape and Lily is that they 
were undoubtedly in the same Potions class. This then led me to 
believe that Lily was responsible for the Potions tips contained in 
Snape's copy of Advanced Potions. Snape merely copied from her 
notes, thus becoming more proficient at Potions himself to the 
extent that he is often described in canon as the Potions Master. 
Therefore, his prowess in Potions is from Lily and not his own 
efforts. Whether this led to his having a crush on Lily I don't 
really know but I would suggest not. That Lily was a respected and 
talented witch would also lead to the conclusion that Snape revered 
Lily without necessarily being in love with her.

> Potioncat now:
BTW what is the origin of "spin doctor"?

Goddlefrood pretending to be expert, but really quoting from 
Wikipedia:

"Spin" was originally an acronym, "Significant Progress In the 
News," used by public relations specialists in the Strategic Defense 
Initiative (SDI) in the mid-1980s. SDI had come under criticism as 
technically impractical. "Spin" was a public-relations attempt to 
counter these claims by issuing news releases showing steady 
progress.

Skilled practitioners of spin are sometimes called "spin doctors", 
though probably not to their faces unless it is said facetiously. It 
is the PR equivalent of calling a writer a "hack." Perhaps the most 
well-known person in the UK often described as a "spin doctor" is 
Alistair Campbell, who was involved with Tony Blair's public 
relations between 1994 and 2003. (Goddlefrood adds ? and is now back 
in the fold).

Spin doctor is, then, of recent origin, less than twenty years ago.
Regarding the remainder of your riposte I offered only my reaction 
to the name as it suggested a meaning to me and other meanings would 
be equally valid. As I have implied in the original post and 
elsewhere (particularly in #141482) I hope Snape redeems himself 
without holding out too much faith that he will do so.

I have not attempted to read the HP books to my son yet, he has the 
attention span of a gnat and it would probably take months to read 
one chapter, far better for me to read them to myself in a day and 
content him with the DVDs.

Goddlefrood waiting for the boy to share the joys of the Potterverse 
and with another on the way.








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 23:04:21 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:04:21 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkomhl+prvv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142611

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rbookworm46" <rbookworm46 at y...>
wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
> 3, Will and Won't.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry? Is this
> a grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry? [Re: 
> Harry now being referred to as 'The Chosen One'.]
> 

bboyminn:

Regarding the Ministry, this is not the first time we have seen their
attitude toward Harry shift with the weight of public opinion.
Although, I admit they are usually manipulating that public opinion.
Consequently, I think the Ministry is paving the way for a renewed
favorable attitude toward Harry, and doing so in the hope of Harry's
renewed favorable attitude toward them.

As to the grassroots aspect, I think separate from the Ministry,
Harry's Rita Skeeter interview and the Ministry's acknowledgment that
Voldemort is indeed back have swayed public opinion very much in
Harry's favor. 

But notice how quickly, across the series, public opinion changes; the
students love Harry then they hate him, the Wizard World loves Harry
then they hate him, then they love him, then they hate him. People are
like sheep; they follow the herd. In this there is an important lesson
 for Harry, and that is 'right is right' regardless of public opinion,
even when doing the right thing has the potential for negative
consequences. This is certainly a lesson the Ministry has never learned.


> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?
> 

Not really, I think Scrimgeour was effectively out of the loop. Plus,
he works for the government, it's his job to do what they say. In a
sense, the head of the FBI might think the President is an ass, but he
is sworn to obey him and follow orders; so he does.


> Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
> Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you think 
> this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
> that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore 
> refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
> between them?
> 

bboyminn:

In this and previous instances of the Ministry's actions and
attitudes, I am very much reminded of 'The Bartimaeus Trilogy' by
Jonathan Stroud. In Stroud's book, the magicians run the muggle
government in Britian, but they spend so much of their time
backstabbing, shifting blame, and trying to make themselves look good
by making others look bad that no one has time to spend to solve the
immense problems at hand.

Rather than take action that is for the good of the public, even
though it may paint the Ministy in a bad light, the Ministry is
strictly into PR (public relations). They are so busy promoting
/tokens/ of good will and action to the public, and currying their own
public image that no one has time to actually do their job and pursue
Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Their goal isn't to defeat Voldemort,
it's to come out of the whole situation looking good. 

The Ministry's effort to get Harry on board has nothing to do with the
immense problem at hand, it is merely to keep the Ministry in a good
public light.

Notice Scrimgeour doesn't say, 'We will give you access to every
resource at our disposal. We will do anything we can to help you.'
Instead, he wants Harry to put on a show for him. He doesn't even try
to hide the context. It's all about looking good in the public eye.
Never once did Scrimgeour address the real problem at hand. 

Certainly, the continued imprisonment of Stan Shunpike demonstrates
the Ministry's reliance on token efforts rather than real attempts to
solve the problems. 

So, to the central point, I don't think Dumbledore is willing to allow
Harry to be used as a token /Poster Boy/ to placate the public. He is
more interested in positive direct action and real productive work
than time wasting passifying tokens. He is simply not willing to let
Harry be used, or to let his time be wasted.

> Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by 
> the new  security measures?  What do you think she said that 
> is hidden from us? 
> 
> Q5:  Do these measures seem reasonable? [Re: Ministry security
> measure pamphlet]
>

bboyminn:

See above. These relatively pointless and useless 'security measures'
to the wizard world at large are not an effort on the part of the
Ministry to actually do something, they are merely an effort to
convince the public that the mostly ineffective government IS doing
something. Again, it's all PR; it's all about looking good, it's all
about appearance over substance.

As to Mrs Longbottom, we have seen before that she is firmly in
Dumbledore's camp and not a big friend of the Ministry. Although, we
must remember that her quote is related to security at the School.
Being a Dumbledore supporter, I'm sure Mrs Longbottom is confident
that Dumbledore will take genuine action to see to it that the
students have the maximum protection possible. She is reassured
because she is placing her faith in Dumbledore, and that is well
placed faith.

 
> Q6:  We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave.  In 
> what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?
> 

bboyminn:

I think, or suspect, that Inferi are very primitive zombie-like
creatures. Dead bodies may be reanimated, but they can't be brought
back to life and can't be made to think.  I believe that within
certain limits they are like puppets. They can be made to do the will
of their master, but only in simple primitive ways. As a consequence,
other than general mayhem, and straight forward murder; I don't think
they are very effective at anything other than creating general panic
in the wizard world.


> Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism justified?  Do you think he has reason to 
> believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 
> 

bboyminn:

I'm not so sure Harry lack of action is based on a lack of faith in
Dumbledore. I think it is more a general low psychological state of
mind. He is miserable; terrible things have happened to him. He lost
Sirius. He simply can't take any more pain or disappointment. So he
doesn't pack up his gear, he doesn't prepare for Dumbledore's arrival,
because he simply can't take the pain and misery of getting himself
all worked up only to be disappointed. There could be very legitimate
reason for Dumbledore to have to delay coming for Harry. He is a busy
man, and circumstances change quickly. But overal, Harry simply can't
take the risk. He can't risk getting his hopes up, then having them
dashed. So, he doesn't prepare, he doesn't anticipate, he doesn't
believe because he can't handle the let-down.

But notice that Harry is waiting at the window and has been at the
window waiting for a significant period of time. In fact, he has been
sitting at the window for four hours. He reads Dumbledore's letter
over and over despite having it memorized. That tells me that whether
he is willing to admit it to himself or not, he is eagerly awaiting
and expecting Dumbledore's arrival, but he simply can't admit it to
himself consciously. 

In a sense, we have a blend of resignation and anticipation. Harry is
resigned to 'what ever will be, will be' because that's what he need
to protect himself, Yet, at the same time, we see great anticipation
that indeed it 'will be'.

> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here? 
> [re: Dumbledore interaction at the Dursley's]
>
> Q11:  Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something
> more significant? [re: Vernon's reaction to hearing of Harry's 
> inheritance]
> 

bboyminn:

Greedy little piggy that he is, Vernon would certainly perk up when
the mention of money and property are involved. Perhaps he is thinking
of being repaid for oh-so-generously taking Harry into his home. Fat
chance!


> Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At 
> this point, why say it at all?  
>
> Q14:  Will there be consequences for either Harry or Dudley in 
> Dumbledore's having done this?  
> 
> Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of age" 
> that would cause the protection to end?  
> 
> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?
> 
> Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?
> 
bboyminn:

Dumbledore is nearing the end. Harry will soon be an adult, and the
Dursley's /services/ will no longer be needed. Consequently, I think
Dumbledore is much less restrained in his tollerance of the Dursleys.
They were the best he had to protect Harry, miserable as they were.
But now, Harry will soon be on his own.

So, now is the time to have his say. Now is the time to point out to
the Dursleys that Dumbledore assigned them a simple task, to care for
Harry, and that they failed miserable. Not only have they miserably
failed to care for Harry, but they have irrepairably damaged their own
child. Despite the fact that they can't see it. 

As parents and guardians go, they are as miserable and failed a lot as
there ever was, and it's high time someone pointed this out to them.

I think it is critical that the Dursleys acknowledge that they will
allow Harry to return. If they deny it on the spot, then Harry
protection is treminated /on the spot/. If they agree to allow him to
return, that ensures that the protection will last another year.

When Harry turns 17, he is no longer under the Dursley's protection;
they are no longer his guardians. That ends the Blood protection even
if Harry lives at the Dursley. 

So, Harry will certainly return to the Dursley's one last time, and if
Ron's words at the end of HBP can be taken as true, the Ron and
Hermione will be with him. Come on now, you must see the comic
potential of that. I can't wait to see what happens.

Plus, I think there are some things that Petunia needs to tell Harry.
Perhaps she will show him Dumbledore's letter. Then there is the
matter of someone showing magic later in life. Most of us are betting
on it being Petunia. That implies that something drastic happens at
the Dursleys for Petunia to be so provoke that she performs magic. So,
I'm convinnced we haven't seen last of number 4 Privet Drive.

In closing this section, I see no significants to Petunia's odd flush.
I think it is simply a matter of anger and embarassment at being
address so bluntly by Dumbledore.

> Q9:  Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12 
> Grimmauld Place?  Why not move someplace friendlier?  Do they 
> secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black?  <g>  Is it because Phineas's 
> portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?
> 
> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?
> 

bboyminn:

Where else does Harry have to go? Miserable as it is, Grimmauld Place
is Harry's. There he can be free and independant. Some might suggest
he could live at the Burrow with the Weasleys, but Molly will never
let Harry have the freedom he needs to accomplish the task at hand.
Hogwarts is likewise restritive but for other reasons.

So, at some point Harry will realize that in order to do what he must
do, he must have a free, independant, and unresticted home base, and
12 Grimmauld Place fits the bill.

I don't see the Order in real good shape. They will certainly hold
together in word, but far less so in deed. The Order has lost its
center, its driving focus, when it lost Dumbledore. They will continue
to try without him, but they will be far less effective. 

I do believe that Harry will enlist their help. Maybe not as a group,
but as individuals. Harry's task is far too much for him to handle
alone, so he has no choice but to realize he needs help and to ask for
it. 

Further, asking for help doesn't necessarily mean revealing every
secret he knows to everyone he meets. He can discretely and
selectively reveal only what in necessary. 

Also, I can imagine Order meetings at the Black house, and despite
someone else being officially in charge (Lupin, Moody, McGonagall),
the Order member are constantly looking in Harry's direction expecting
/hoping/anticipating some meaning, direction, and purpose from Harry.
In a sense, they know that regardless of who is in charge, it's really
Harry that is leading the fight against Voldemort.


> Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the 
> Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's 
> orders to Kreacher still apply?
> 

bboyminn:

If you think back to Harry meeting Dobby in the Hogwart's kitchens in
GoF, we hear Dobby say that keeping their master's secrets is part of
a house-elves enslavement. In a sense, by taking on their charge, the
elves are sworn to secrecy. Notice, that even after years of freedom,
Dobby is not real forthcoming about Malfoy's secrets.
 
>
> And to repeat the Potioncat's question from Chapter 2:
> Ch2-Q10. Here's a question to think about when we move into chapter 
> 3: "The Other Minister" begins with a Muggle receiving two 
> visitors.  It's an informative, yet humorous chapter. The 
> dreary "Spinners End" begins with two visitors coming to a very 
> different Muggle location. "Will and Won't" begins with someone 
> waiting for a visitor and returns us to a more humorous mood. How do 
> these three chapters work together?
> 
> Ravenclaw Bookworm


bboyminn:

I think they work very nicely together, especially since there is the
preception of overlapping time. In these three short chapters a great
deal of backstory is cleared up (perhaps a little too quickly), and
the stage is set for the story to move forward. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 23:12:48 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:12:48 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkmk9p+oenc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkon1g+7kog@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142612

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think you missed my point here. Rock music formed from a very 
> > specific cultural evolution.  There is nothing within the WW's 
> > history to think that they would have formed that type of music 
> > completely (or even partially) on their own.  So the Weird      
> > Sisters *must* have formed because of Muggle music wizards heard 
> > and shared with each other.  They could not exist otherwise.

> >>Nora: 
> That's not true.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, you're the doctoral student (I believe) so I'll have to take 
your word for it. <g>  Though it flies in the face of everything 
I've ever read on the history of rock music.  (What culture, totally 
seperated from the US also created rock?  I'm genuinely curious.)

I still think it's a huge leap of faith to say that the Muggle world 
and the WW, while travelling on parallel tracks, that never, ever 
touched, came up with the exact same form of music at the exact same 
time. 

And I'm still confused at why it's patently impossible for Snape to 
have been exposed to punk rock.

> >>Nora:
> One other thing that comes to mind is that *no* Muggle group is    
> going to be active participants in the methods of dissemination    
> that the WW takes part in.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's why I used the word "parasite".  I think the word "exploite" 
got thrown around as well. 

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> Because on a simple factual level, and even dealing with details, 
> there are things that make sense and things which 
> just...well...don't.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I guess my point is that there is more that doesn't make sense if 
one insists that there is no blending of the two worlds, at all.  
And there is more that *does* make sense if one works with the idea 
that the two cultures *do* blend.  Especially since JKR has given us 
specific examples of wizards venturing out into the Muggle world.  
(The QWC is a perfect example, I think.  The interaction with the 
Muggle Prime Minister is another.)

(Thanks for the Wainscot Fantasy definition, by the way. Good to 
know. <g>)

> >>Nora:
> I don't think I've ever said that there haven't been borrowings.  
> What I'm arguing, again, is the point that people in the WW seem 
> rather unlikely to go forth and make central the consumption of 
> specific Muggle musical products.  Have we ever heard of anyone 
> reading a recognizable piece of Muggle literature?  Not outside of 
> a thousand bleach-to-brain fanfics.

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I was under the impression that "no borrowings" was your 
main point.  That for some reason it was near impossible for a 
wizard to ever hear Muggle music and to suggest otherwise was to 
enter the realm of crap fanfic.

[As an aside: You and I must read completely different fanfics.  
There are some quite good fics out there that deal with the blending 
of the various cultures.  Copperbadge's "Stealing Harry" comes to 
mind.  Of course, that may well be your version of a crappy fic, so 
there you go. <g>]

To clarify my point, I'm not suggesting that the WW goes out enmass 
to consume Muggle music and culture.  Rather that there are those 
wizards with an interest who *do* venture into the Muggle world, and 
then bring Muggle items back into the WW, giving them their own 
wizarding twist for the more squeamish wizards to consume. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Yes, because inventing your own spells and improving on various 
> > potions is such a sign of a lack of patience. (Sorry. Couldn't   
> > help myself. <g>)

> >>Nora: 
> Invention patience...ah, not the same animal as listening to music 
> (especially the music you all wanted to ascribe to him) as        
> anything more than aural wallpaper. :)

Betsy Hp:
I've never suggested Snape as a composer.  I suggested he was a 
listener.  I *can* say, with a great deal of authority, that one can 
listen to and enjoy Debussy or Beethoven or Rachmaninov or Velvet 
Underground or even ABBA (yes, even ABBA!) without taking special 
courses or having a specialized type of patience. <bg>

Betsy Hp






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 23:29:58 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:29:58 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dkofca+onpp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoo1m+s33s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142613

> colebiancardi: 
> actually, the Roman Empire had plumbing over 4000 years ago.  They 
> were very clean.

Goddlefrood (a Roman centurion in a previous incarnation):

The Roman Empire is most usually dated to the Battle of Actium on 
2nd September 31 B.C. Rather less than 4000 years ago. The city of 
Rome itself had its "legendary founding" in 753 B.C. by Romulus and 
Remus. Again rather less than 4000 years ago (1995 B.C.)

The Romans did indeed invent plumbing however and the website to 
which you refer as your source should perhaps be notified of this 
information.

The Roman Republic was founded rather later, that is in 510 B.C. 
after the last of the Kings was expelled and the Consuls enthroned 
in his place.

Goddlefrood the pedant








From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 00:04:44 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lilly and James - Harry as Head Boy
In-Reply-To: <dklla9+auag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051108000444.77389.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142614

Steve:
I guess what I'm saying is that there is /some/
possibility for Harry to be named Head Boy, but I
think there are other
male students with
better academic records than Harry. So, while it
could go either way,
I would say the scales at the moment are weighing
against him.

Juli: I believe it all depends on who the new
Headmaster is going to be, is Minerva going to
continue has Headmistress? McGonagall, me thinks, is a
Harry fan. She knows what he's been throught, she
"knows" him. I do think she will make him Headboy.

Now if there's a new Headmaster, who knows what will
happen.

By the way, who choses the head boy/girl? I'm saying
it's the Headmaster, but we really don't know...
 

As for Head Girl, I think Hermione's got the job (as
long as she returns to Hogwarts)

JMO




		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Nov  8 00:11:51 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:11:51 -0000
Subject: Pondering on the Prank
In-Reply-To: <dkoddp+s57f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoqg7+qu1o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142615

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71"
<quick_silver71 at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Now RAB stands a good chance of being Regulus Black and it could be 
> that he ties in with the Prank. Wouldn't that be a motive? What if 
> Sirius Black felt that Snape was luring his younger brother down the 
> dark path? Sirius would have felt that the time had come for 
> desperate measures and it ties in nicely with Sirius leaving home at 
> 16 (which occurs in the same general time as the Prank)...it could 
> be that Sirius feels he's tried everything to save Regulus from his 
> fate. It also explains his comment in PoA...Regulus ended up dead 
> and Sirius certainly wouldn't have been forgiving if he felt Snape 
> was responsible.
> 
>  
> Quick_Silver

ahh....you've made me remember(like I would ever forget it) my theory
of Regulus was the answer to Snape's remorse.  I've snipped some bits
from my original post way back in July:

Ok. We know that Regulus is Sirius's younger brother and that he was
in the house of Slytherin, which happens to be Snape's house as
well. Since it has been stressed upon the readers that your house is
like your family, I am going to assume that Snape KNEW Regulus, even
though he may have been a year or two younger than Snape. What else
do we know? Regulus died in 1980 ? the family tree stated in OotP
that Regulus died 15 years earlier, which makes in 1980, if OotP is
in 1995. We also know that Snape in 1980, heard overheard the
prophecy and it was a cold, wet day ? so either late winter, spring
or late fall of 1980. At this time Snape was still working for LV.
Since Regulus died in 1980, he was also in the DE's at that time. We
do know that Snape turned and became a spy for DD sometime AFTER he
heard the prophecy and BEFORE James & Lily died. 

snip

Regulus was killed, according to Sirius, by Voldemort or more likely
(in Sirius's words), another Death Eater. If RAB is Regulus, and he
was killed by another DE, does that mean that Regulus was dying, due
to the potion? If so, would Regulus go to the man he viewed as
family, Snape, who is also an accomplished potions master? Who could
have prevented his death? Did Regulus tell Snape what Voldemort was
up to, with the horcruxs ? and if Snape knew of the prophecy at this
time, what did Snape think of this?

3 possibilities:
1. Snape gave Regulus a potion to reverse the effects of the poison
and told him to get out of dodge. Voldemort then sent a DE to
dispatch of Regulus.
2. Snape does not give the cure to Regulus, but lets him die
3. Repeat Number 1 and instead of an unnamed DE, it is Snape whom
Voldemort sends to kill Regulus.

added in new 4th possiblity(if Regulus is still alive)

4. Regulus goes to Snape, dying from the potion he just drank. Snape
gives him the antidote. LV tells Snape to kill Regulus. Snape cannot -
Regulus is like a brother to him. Instead, Snape takes Regulus to
Dumbledore and Dumbledore now hides Regulus. Snape has now become DD's
spy the moment he took Regulus to DD. Snape returns to LV and tells LV
that he killed Regulus. So, how did DD managed to hide Regulus? Don't
know - but when DD is talking to Draco and telling him he(DD) can
protect & hide Draco - Draco states that LV will kill him. DD says
something very strange at this point...You cannot be killed if you are
already dead...

full posts at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135111

more thoughts on the friendship:
colebiancardi:
good point on the friends issue. One of my thoughts, as I too
sometimes think that about Snape, is that he does make good
connections with the right *people* - the Malfoy's, for instance.
Narcissa states that Snape "is Lucius's old friend" in Spinner's End,
so I am assuming he CAN make friends, but not the buddy-buddy type.
The reasons I think Snape & Regulus were *friends* are a) It is the
right family(the Blacks, pure-blood & old), b) Lucius was probably
already sniffing around Narcissa and she is a cousin to Regulus c)
they are in the same house and it has been stressed that your house at
Hogwarts is like your family and d) what a better way to dig into
Sirius - being friends with his brother. And a BIG reason why Sirius
still hated Snape to the day he died - especially if it was Snape who
recruited Regulus to become a Death Eater. Notice that Snape's
*friends* are pure-blood, unlike himself. He choose his friends based
on their linage, not for any real liking - perhaps.

original link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135710

let me know what you think!!

colebiancardi
(loves my very un-loved and unappreciated Regulus and Snape theory)








From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 00:12:06 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:12:06 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkon1g+7kog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoqgm+mdnv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142616

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> Well, you're the doctoral student (I believe) so I'll have to take 
> your word for it. <g>  Though it flies in the face of everything 
> I've ever read on the history of rock music.  (What culture, 
> totally seperated from the US also created rock?  I'm genuinely 
> curious.)

Not totally separated, but 'rock' is hardly a monolithic phenomenon 
with explicit and totally tracable paths of evolution--which is part 
of why people argue so hard about its origins.  There are popular 
musics elsewhere in the world which have some definite similarities, 
although it becomes very difficult to separate things out.  The whole 
idea of 'pure' culture is pretty laughable, of course.

> I still think it's a huge leap of faith to say that the Muggle 
> world and the WW, while travelling on parallel tracks, that never, 
> ever touched, came up with the exact same form of music at the 
> exact same time. 

That's never been what I've been arguing.  I'm simply arguing 
against, again, the idea that Muggle music is a common currency 
within wizarding society, maintaining its sonic profile and band 
associations unchanged.  I see the WW with their own musical icons 
(Celestina Warbeck), not wholescale poaching of Muggle ones.

I'm lacking the reference, but aren't the Weird Sisters somewhat non-
traditional, as compared to your standard rock band, in their 
instrumentation?  That speaks of a strong preference for adaptation, 
in and of itself.

> And I'm still confused at why it's patently impossible for Snape to 
> have been exposed to punk rock.

Because it requires him, IMO, given what I know about music 
distribution and musical cultures, to be and/or have been an 
interested party in actually engaging with a distinctively Muggle 
culture.  Now maybe Snape is more comfortable at home in Muggle 
culture, but I'd argue signs point against him having an interest in 
engaging with and identifying with it.  Half-bloods comfortable in 
their straddling of two worlds don't generally join a group of people 
whose overt public face is "Everything Muggle sucks and is inferior".

<snips arguments which I don't think I ever made>

Again, I don't think I've argued that there was no influence on 
wizarding culture.  I object to 'blend', though, because it goes one 
way, and it seems to be a very selective process.

> To clarify my point, I'm not suggesting that the WW goes out enmass 
> to consume Muggle music and culture.  Rather that there are those 
> wizards with an interest who *do* venture into the Muggle world, 
> and then bring Muggle items back into the WW, giving them their own 
> wizarding twist for the more squeamish wizards to consume. 

I can buy that.  That's totally not what was originally suggested by 
the speculation en masse of what kind of Muggle music Lucius Malfoy 
would have exposed young Snapeykins to.

> Betsy Hp:
> I've never suggested Snape as a composer.  I suggested he was a 
> listener.  I *can* say, with a great deal of authority, that one 
> can listen to and enjoy Debussy or Beethoven or Rachmaninov or 
> Velvet Underground or even ABBA (yes, even ABBA!) without taking 
> special courses or having a specialized type of patience. <bg>

Depends on your definition of 'listen', of course... :)

-Nora works on her own definitely Germanic biases in that area, but 
notes that they aren't totally awful biases to have...






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  8 00:45:58 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:45:58 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkogse+qhoc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkosg6+po7a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142617

 
> > SSSusan:
> > Heh heh.  I know some posters believe DD was out of line, but not 
> > me.  I squealed with delight as this scene progressed.  And one 
> > reason I did so is that DD *was* polite. 



> a_svirn
> 
> I can see why you could squeal with delight, but as for calling his 
> behaviour "polite"
 Surely you must be mistaken. To come uninvited, 
> without according your hosts a courtesy to deny you an entry is not 
> polite in the least.

Valky:
I differ on this occassion, a_svirn. Dumbledore follows custom very
well as far as I can see up to this point. He has announced his
arrival and in good faith arrives sharp on the hour. He *has* given
reasonable courtesy to deny him entry so far from his end. He arrives
in good faith and establishes that a misunderstanding has gone on.
Vernon has a further right to turn him away now, politely with a
reasonable excuse but failing that, it would be quite rude to turn
away someone who has come in good faith and has followed custom so
brilliantly as to even make pleasantries and introductions in the
correct manner. It is at this point that Dumbledore does *have* the
upper hand because Vernon and Petunia, as impossibly 'well up' on
etiquette as some brits can be, know darn well that if they don't want
Dumbledore to enter all that is left is to be very very rude in
turning him away into the night. When Dumbledore says I shall assume
that you have invited me warmly into your home, he is not breaking
etiquette, he's paying Vernon a compliment by saying, I have assumed
that you, Mr Dursely, are of a most civilised order and 'of course'
this is what civilised men, like we, do.


a_svirn:
>  To usurp their position in their own house is 
> still less polite. In fact it's downright rude, just check any 
> etiquette guide. Dumbledore was being about as polite as Scrimgeour 
> in the Prime Minister office, and about as courteous as Voldemort 
> when he insisted on observing the "niceties" of the dueling code. 
> Granted, Dumbledore did the thing with his usual style yet it wasn't 
> his superior manners he was demonstrating but the upper hand. 

Valky:
OTOH the Dursley's refused his gift, and struggled with their own
inability to follow *their* code of behaviour. Dumbledore acted beyond
as well any sensitive alien to British formal culture could be
expected to act. It can be seen from the both sides of the table. From
Dumbledores end it can be seen as good faith - he has followed custom
and therefore has every right to expect reciprocation of custom. The
Dursleys are just cornered because they cannot hide their prejudice
and ugliness behind proper manners, it would be more polite for them
to drink the offered gift and nod ceremoniously at Dumbledore's
conversation. It was definitely their own disservice to themselves
that they couldn't.



> a_svirn:
> And did you notice: Harry was not even remotely delighted with this 
> little demonstration. He was anxious to leave. Wonder what he was 
> reminded of. 

Valky:
Now this I absolutely agree with, but I will have to think on it some
more. My first intuition is that Harry felt disgusted that Dumbledore
afforded the superficial pompness of custom his bother, and maybe he
was reminded of the Dursley's themselves pressing their civility on
others to gain the upper hand. Any other thoughts? 








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 01:14:31 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:14:31 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkoqgm+mdnv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkou5n+rdrn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142618

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And I'm still confused at why it's patently impossible for Snape 
> > to have been exposed to punk rock.

> >>Nora:
> Because it requires him, IMO, given what I know about music 
> distribution and musical cultures, to be and/or have been an 
> interested party in actually engaging with a distinctively Muggle 
> culture.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This, then, is where we differ.  The thing about music is it creeps 
in.  You can't shut your ears.  Snape didn't have to go out and 
deliberately seek Muggle forms of music.  My theory was that he was 
sent back to his father's old home at Spinner's End shortly after 
graduating.  While holed up there he occasionally (probably daily, 
based on his activity level) went out for a walk around the town.  
(Snape would *not* be scared of a bunch of miserable Muggles.)  
Based on the time and place, Snape may well have heard punk music 
blaring from boom-boxes, maybe floating out from a club.  Based on 
the very angry place he was coming from, it's not unreasonable to 
suppose he may have been intrigued. At least, IMO.

I also think the view the Death Eaters have towards Muggles were 
more along the lines of segregation era whites towards blacks in the 
USA, rather than WWII era Nazies towards Jews in Germany.  They 
don't want to wipe the Muggles out.  They want them clearly defined 
as "lesser than".  That sort of view allows for a bit of cultural 
bleed over. (Both views are totally wrong.  Which should go without 
saying, but in the interest of clarity... <g>)
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > To clarify my point, I'm not suggesting that the WW goes out     
> > enmass to consume Muggle music and culture.  Rather that there   
> > are those wizards with an interest who *do* venture into the    
> > Muggle world, and then bring Muggle items back into the WW,     
> > giving them their own wizarding twist for the more squeamish    
> > wizards to consume. 

> >>Nora: 
> I can buy that.  That's totally not what was originally suggested 
> by the speculation en masse of what kind of Muggle music Lucius    
> Malfoy would have exposed young Snapeykins to.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm.  I don't honestly see the contradiction.  But again, I think I 
see a different level of seperation desired by pure-bloods and their 
ilk.  Also, since I theorize that the WW doesn't have much of a 
musical culture (we've heard mention of two perfomers total) and the 
idea of life without music is a bit of anathema to me, I assume most 
wizards need to go to the Muggle world for their fix.

So you've got your go-betweens who buy a Muggle album and then mass 
re-record it in a magical way for a magical record that can play on 
a magical gramophone.  Or program magical instruments to play 
certain pieces, or train up some house-elves, or something of the 
sort. 

And, actually, I've sort of figured the pure-bloods for the go-
betweens of yesteryear.  Especially the ones with money now.  Kind 
of like robber barons.  Adds a nice level of hypocrisy to their 
whole, "Muggles suck", mentality, IMO. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I *can* say, with a great deal of authority, that one 
> > can listen to and enjoy Debussy or Beethoven or Rachmaninov or 
> > Velvet Underground or even ABBA (yes, even ABBA!) without taking 
> > special courses or having a specialized type of patience. <bg>

> >>Nora: 
> Depends on your definition of 'listen', of course... :)

Betsy Hp:
Oh, now I *know* you're a grad student. <bg>






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 01:18:04 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:18:04 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkoqgm+mdnv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoucc+c7rf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142619

Nora:
> I'm simply arguing 
> against, again, the idea that Muggle music is a common currency 
> within wizarding society, maintaining its sonic profile and band 
> associations unchanged

I don't know about 'common currency', but wouldn't a half-blood or
muggleborn, who constitute a large percentage of the Hogwarts
population, go clubbing or whatever on a saturday night over the
summer?  And take their friends as they got older?  Wouldn't a
musically inclined subset at Hogwarts fall in love with bands like
normal people?  I suppose the Weird Sisters would have started like
that-- listening to muggle music, and starting a garage band at
Hogwarts.  The wizard-on-the-street wouldn't know the sources, but
then, the man-on-the-street hasn't heard of obscure indie bands that
source mainstream rock either.  

What are we arguing about again? Oh yes:

> That's totally not what was originally suggested by 
> the speculation en masse of what kind of Muggle music Lucius Malfoy 
> would have exposed young Snapeykins to.

In so far as this concerns me, I don't think I ever actually posited
Lucius as taking Snape to the opera.  I said, quote, "Lucius is the
TYPE OF PERSON who goes to the opera and talks all the way through
it".  Which is what I thought we were talking about, which is, given
the sort of people these characters are, what is the sort of music
they would listen to?  There's two conversations here, both of which
are fun:  the sociology of music in the wizarding world one, and the,
what, meta?, one matching characters with bands.
> 
> Betsy:
> I *can* say, with a great deal of authority, that one 
> > can listen to and enjoy Debussy or Beethoven or Rachmaninov or 
> > Velvet Underground or even ABBA (yes, even ABBA!) without taking 
> > special courses or having a specialized type of patience. <bg>

Nora:
> 
> Depends on your definition of 'listen', of course... :)

Me:

I think that's exactly the sort of patience Snape has, actually-- the
patience to hunker down alone in a dark room and analyze something
over a period of hours, as a complicated potion might take, that
involves a complex interplay of elements.  And nobody could argue that
Snape isn't an obsessive personality!  

Sydney








From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  8 01:32:46 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:32:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's
 Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkon1g+7kog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F34C464D629A5AA017C17DA91640@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 142620



Betsy Hp:
>I still think it's a huge leap of faith to say that the Muggle world
>and the WW, while travelling on parallel tracks, that never, ever
>touched, came up with the exact same form of music at the exact same
>time.

PJ:
But they do touch!   Each and every time an 11 year old Muggle child gets a 
letter from Hogwarts, that new student's music, sports, literature and 
(perhaps) art preferences goes right to Hogwarts along with them!  Like 
Harry, these children could've been exposed to all of this at their public 
schools as well as from their parents.  Also when they go home for the 
summer and holidays they hear any of the new music they missed while at 
school.

For those older, more established in the WW type wizards, walking down 
Muggle streets or opening a window in your muggle area homes (they can't all 
be out in the middle of nowhere!) can get you an earful of whatever music is 
currently all the rage, so muggle contamination in the arts seems almost a 
given to me...

Betsy Hp:
>And I'm still confused at why it's patently impossible for Snape to
>have been exposed to punk rock.

PJ:
I think it's perfectly reasonable to think he may have been.  He lives in a 
so called "muggle dunghill" so I'm sure music from boomboxes or passing car 
stereos are the norm.

PJ (who sometimes wonders how much whining the Muggleborn kids do when they 
find out there's no television in the Wizarding World)





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 01:38:52 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:38:52 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkosg6+po7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkovjc+r63v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142621


> Valky:
> OTOH the Dursley's refused his gift, and struggled with their own
> inability to follow *their* code of behaviour. 

a_svirn:

Did they now? I thought they were struggling with a bit of magic and 
not surprisingly fighting a loosing battle: three muggles against 
the most powerful wizard in the world.  

> Valky:
>Dumbledore acted beyond
> as well any sensitive alien to British formal culture could be
> expected to act. 

a_svirn:

Really? Sensitive to what? Dumbledore's behaviour is actually 
nothing but bullying, pure and simple. Of course he wasn't crude 
while he was at it ? it's not his style. But sensitive? 

> Valky:
>It can be seen from the both sides of the table. From
> Dumbledores end it can be seen as good faith - he has followed 
custom
> and therefore has every right to expect reciprocation of custom.

a_svirn:
What custom did Dumbledore follow? He came uninvited and took the 
position of his host; I'd like you to direct me to any book or site 
where such behaviour would be described as customary or as an 
example of good manners. Of course, it may be that wizards customary 
deal with muggles in that fashion. After all we saw Scrimgeour doing 
just that in the Prime Minister's office. 

> Valky:
The
> Dursleys are just cornered because they cannot hide their prejudice
> and ugliness behind proper manners, 

a_svirn:

The Dursleys are cornered, because they are cornered. They are 
powerless, regardless of their manners. 


> Valky:
it would be more polite for them
> to drink the offered gift and nod ceremoniously at Dumbledore's
> conversation. It was definitely their own disservice to themselves
> that they couldn't.

a_svirn:
You know, when I'm at home *I* am the one who does the offerings, be 
it a place to seat, a refreshment, or a conversational gambit. To 
seat before it's suggested by your host IS rude. To offer a drink to 
your host IS rude. To demand any such thing even in the "shell we 
assume" form IS rude. Because ALL THIS IS A PREROGATIVE OF YOUR 
HOST. And if I don't want to see a visitor, to entertain them and to 
let them in *my* house I am within my rights to simply refuse to do 
any such thing. It is not polite to trespass on my property (in fact 
it's a criminal offence), impose on my privacy and practically give 
orders in my own place all the while preaching manners. 


> Valky:
> Now this I absolutely agree with, but I will have to think on it 
some
> more. My first intuition is that Harry felt disgusted that 
Dumbledore
> afforded the superficial pompness of custom his bother, and maybe 
he
> was reminded of the Dursley's themselves pressing their civility on
> others to gain the upper hand. Any other thoughts?

a_svirn:
My thought is that Harry has learned to recognise bullying when he 
sees it. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 01:43:42 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:43:42 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod (was: Staff's Activities...)
In-Reply-To: <dkoqgm+mdnv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkovse+kmet@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142622


> > Betsy Hp:
> > Well, you're the doctoral student (I believe) so I'll have to 
take 
> > your word for it. <g>  Though it flies in the face of everything 
> > I've ever read on the history of rock music.  (What culture, 
> > totally seperated from the US also created rock?  I'm genuinely 
> > curious.)


> Nora:
> Not totally separated, but 'rock' is hardly a monolithic 
phenomenon 
> with explicit and totally tracable paths of evolution--which is 
part 
> of why people argue so hard about its origins.  There are popular 
> musics elsewhere in the world which have some definite 
similarities, 
> although it becomes very difficult to separate things out.  

a_svirn:
I suppose there are popular musics elsewhere, but either they are 
rock and thus derivative or they are something else and thus they 
are something else. For instance if, say, the scale of Chinese music 
is pentatonic you can hardly expect the popular tunes based on it to 
be anything like those based on a diatonic seven-note scale. Of 
course, the great break-up with muggles occurred only in the end of 
the 17th century, so there wouldn't be much difference where scales 
and pitches are concerned, but still I can hardly imagine wizards 
coming up with anything "rock-like" on their own. 

> Nora:
>The whole 
> idea of 'pure' culture is pretty laughable, of course.

a_svirn:
Whose idea is that? 






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  8 01:46:53 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:46:53 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkovjc+r63v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c5e406$4c44a130$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142623

a_svirn:
My thought is that Harry has learned to recognise bullying when he 
sees it. 


Sherry now:
Dumbledore's behavior to the Dursleys hardly counts as bullying to me, when
I consider the years of hell Harry went through at their tender mercies.
Dumbledore's treatment was exactly right, in my opinion.  If Harry wasn't
interested, i see that more as he just wanting to get out of there, and not
a judgment on Dumbledore's actions.  Dumbledore, as you say the most
powerful wizard in the world, could have done a heck of a lot more to them
than just be a little gloriously rude.  I thought it was wonderful.  still
one of my favorite scenes in all the books.  It was someone else being rude
to them on Harry's behalf for a change.  fantastic!

Sherry




From zehms at aol.com  Mon Nov  7 20:12:05 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:12:05 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <1aa.42d66b31.30a10f15@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142624

According to JKR, Lily was the only person ever given the choice to live but 
instead sheilded her son.

JKR stated that had LV gone after Neville and had Alice protected Neville, 
Neville would have become the "chosen one", but LV chose the baby of the parents 
most likely to be more troublesome for him, there was something powerful 
about James and Lily that made LV feel that their child would most likely develop 
the abilities to "vanquish" him.

I think that given the opportunity many parents would have shielded their 
child or loved one from LV, however, as was the case with James, LV killed them 
too quickly to give someone the opportunity.

JKR stated in the Leaky Cauldren interview that instead of asking how Harry 
was saved, she has already given us this answer Lily's simple act of love saved 
Harry, we should be asking WHY LILY WAS GIVEN A CHOICE...No one prior to Lily 
was allowed to 'step aside', so the real question is not What saved Harry, 
but why was LV willing to save Lily?

szehms


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From monica.schuster at mci.com  Mon Nov  7 22:30:21 2005
From: monica.schuster at mci.com (captainconk)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:30:21 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
In-Reply-To: <dkoceo+bnob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkokht+8rf2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142625

Lucianam:
> >Maybe in the WW it is absolutely necessary that you have a body in
> >order to have any sort of memorial service, goodbye ceremony,
> >whatever. How strange of them.
> 
> >Not that I ever understood JKR's take on Sirius. She practically had
> >him star two books - PoA and OotP - and now she's practically
> >ignored his death in HBP. Sirius's appearances in the HP series have
> >been sort like a rollercoaster.


CaptainConk now:

I think she (JKR) handled Sirius's death this way on purpose.
Sirius is taken from Harry is such a sudden unexpected way that he 
(Harry) doesnt know how to deal with it. Letting the topic just drop 
off also seams to fit the way he died. Poof! he was just gone. No body, 
nothing. Lupin even has to hold Harry back to keep him from running 
after Sirius. I think that she just left it the way she did, because we 
are seeing/feeling the WW thru Harry. No one goes out of their way to 
address it more then DD and in passing and Ron and Hermione. (and Harry 
doesnt really want to talk to them about it) So I think that it's 
fitting to the way he died to just drop the topic like that. I'm nto 
saying that I'm comfortable with it, but it makes sense if you really 
think about it.

Orna:
I also don't know how to figure out JKR's management of Sirius.

I had the feeling, that Sirius in many ways had no body ? he is 
mentioned for his motorbike ? in PS, then in PoA, even though, he is 
the main figure ? we get a distorted picture of him ? a mass-
murderer, viciously entering Hogwarts, and mostly disguised as a 
dog. Or - the Potter's best man, friend - he seems always defined by 
his relation to somebody/something else. There are a few minutes, 
where he is human, lovable, those few minutes, where Harry can dream 
of leaving the Dursleys. And then he is on the run again, featured 
only by his notes. In the OotP, he his captive in his family-house, 
which serve as headquarters - but he is again out of focus. 
Ironically, when he appears in full focus - it is in a false vision, 
luring him to his death. Featuring outside ? he appears as a dog on 
the platform, or as a head in the common-room fire. Once he leaves 
his place and appears whole, human and vigorous ? he dies ? without 
leaving a body, a funeral, a memorial ceremony.

Captainconk again:
Basically I agree. It all just makes sense... Sirius is gone as 
suddenly as he appeared. It's too bad though.

Monica bows her head for a moment of silence for one hell of a guy.









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 01:51:47 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:51:47 -0000
Subject: Snaps's hair (Was: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. )
In-Reply-To: <dko8rq+c94i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp0bj+1r96@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142626

Lucianam wrote:
> 
> What about long hair being mysterious (in Snape's case)?? I think it
is, not only it instantly makes you a better Occlumens - hides
emotions, as lealess said - but keeps your features in the shadows.
Only I don't know if Snape likes to keep his face in the shadows
because he thinks he's ugly or because he likes the Mystery aura. I 
suspect it's the second reason, Snape doesn't strike me as someone 
who's unconfortable with his looks. <snip>

Carol responds:
Yes, the long hair goes nicely with his inscrutable expression (which
I've promised Kemper that I'll look into more deeply at a later date).
As I posted elsewhere, I think he's cultivated his current aura and
appearance, which differ markedly from his round-shouldered nerdiness
as a boy. Power or authority and mystery, with a touch of elegance as
well in his diction and his sweeping movements (greatly aided by a
billowing cloak). Posters keep associating his long hair with the 60s
or 70s, but I think it's unrelated to modern Muggle fashion trends. It
seems to me to fit well with wizarding robes, which reflect medieval
dress (Hogwarts uniforms seem to be modeled on Oxford academic gowns
from around the time the college was founded in 1249, and Snape's
robes, except for his cloak and the absence of a hat, seem to resemble
the students' uniforms--which are not open in front as depicted in the
films and MGP's drawings). Medieval men from, say, the 11th through
thirteenth centuries, would also have worn ankle-length cloaks much
like Snape's. 

If we look at medieval hairstyles from a slightly later period, say
the mid-fifteenth to early sixteenth centuries, the men from this
period are clean-shaven and have shoulder-length hair. (Look at the
paintings of the English kings Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and
Henry VII.) So I think that Snape's hairstyle, like his clothing,
reflects WW tradition. (As for Dumbledore, with his waist-length hair
and beard and his multi-colored robes, I'm always reminded of a rather
Disneyfied Merlin. Again, very medieval, if not exactly an authentic
historical figure and dating, if he were real, from the late Roman
period.)

Lucianam wrote:
> May I take this opportunity to applaud the highly competent person
who came up with Movie!Snape's visual concept. When I think they could
have followed Mary Grandpre's drawings!! Movie Snape is just spot on -
hair included.

Carol responds:
I'm sure the List Elves will forgive an "I agree" here since I added a
whole paragraph of slightly more substantive WAFFLE above. It's as if
the casting and makeup designers had read "Spinner's End," seeing
Snape without Harry's perspective uglifying him. (The costume
designers messed up on the tight sleeves and knee-length coat in place
of floor-length robes with wider sleeves, though. Movie!Snape looks as
if he should be called upon to deliver a sermon.)

Regarding Sirius Black (whom I am not swooning over, sorry, Sirius
fans). I think he has long, matted hair in PoA simply because he's
been in Azkaban, and logically he should have a long, matted beard to
go with it. Clearly the Dementors weren't passing out tooth paste,
shampoo, and shaving cream, and they certainly didn't come around with
hair-cutting or shaving spells. (They should have had wizard
assistants to do the job since Dementors are blind and don't use
wands.) Exactly how he comes by a shorter haircut when he's still on
the run in GoF and still doesn't own a wand is a bit of a mystery.

To return to Snape, he doesn't have access to a barber at Hogwarts,
but maybe there's one in Hogsmeade? Or he gets a haircut once a year
on summer holiday? I'm assuming that he shaves himself daily with his
wand and perhaps even cuts his own hair with a similar spell. If so, a
shoulder-length blunt cut would be a lot more practical than a shorter
cut involving bangs (a fringe) and trimmed sideburns and layering the
hair on the back of the head. A less complex application of the spell,
less concentration required. (Please realize that I'm not wholly
serious here.)

Carol, who once tried to trim her ex-husband's hair with electric
clippers and zipped off a whole sideburn (no, that didn't cause the
divorce!) 








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 02:06:57 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:06:57 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <002e01c5e406$4c44a130$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dkp181+tvbi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142627

> Sherry:
> Dumbledore's behavior to the Dursleys hardly counts as bullying to 
me, when
> I consider the years of hell Harry went through at their tender 
mercies.
> Dumbledore's treatment was exactly right, in my opinion.  

a_svirn:

Well, it was Dumbledore who left him to their tender mercies in the 
first place. They certainly didn't ask for the job. Besides, what it 
has to say to anything? They may be as bad as they come, but 
Dumbledore behaviour would still be a "glorious" bit of bullying. 

> Sherry:
If Harry wasn't
> interested, i see that more as he just wanting to get out of 
there, and not
> a judgment on Dumbledore's actions.  Dumbledore, as you say the 
most
> powerful wizard in the world, could have done a heck of a lot more 
to them
> than just be a little gloriously rude.  

a_svirn:
So they actually had to thank him that he didn't turn them into 
tapeworms? How remiss of them not to express their gratitude!

> Sherry:
I thought it was wonderful.  still
> one of my favorite scenes in all the books.  It was someone else 
being rude
> to them on Harry's behalf for a change.  fantastic!

a_svirn:
What do you mean "for a change"? We have seen wizards being rude to 
them on Harry's behalf from the book 1.






From darqali at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 00:13:37 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:13:37 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dkoo1m+s33s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkoqjh+mps7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142628

Goddlefrood (a Roman centurion in a previous incarnation):
> 
> The Roman Empire is most usually dated to the Battle of Actium on 
> 2nd September 31 B.C. Rather less than 4000 years ago. The city of 
> Rome itself had its "legendary founding" in 753 B.C. by Romulus and 
> Remus. Again rather less than 4000 years ago (1995 B.C.)
> 
> The Romans did indeed invent plumbing however and the website to 
> which you refer as your source should perhaps be notified of this 
> information.
> 
> The Roman Republic was founded rather later, that is in 510 B.C. 
> after the last of the Kings was expelled and the Consuls enthroned 
> in his place.


Being very elderly, my education is out of date; but I did in fact 
major in History in collegs, and am in fact very well aware that the 
Romans had "plumbing" {of sorts}; and toilets {of sorts} and hey! 
hypocaust central heating, too!

However, they did *not* have *flushing* toilets, nor any sort of 
interior plumbing resembling that described in Hogwart's castle, 
within which S. Slythern hid the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets, 
and within which the Basilisk was able to get around the castle un-
seeen, as described by JKR.  And the Muggles of the era of the 
building of Hogwart's didn't have them at that time {yet} either.

Since Hogwart's apparently *did* have these things, very similar to 
modern Muggle plumbing, 1000 years in the past, it is simple to 
conclude that Wizards invented modern plumbing.

Indeed, since we see very ancient wizarding world characters 
celebrated on the Chocolate Frog trading cards, such as Circe, and 
the much later Merlin and so on, one may then conclude that perhaps 
the versions of plumbing used by the ancient Romans were Wizard 
invention as well ....

"darqali"










From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov  8 02:11:39 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:11:39 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp1gr+kgf8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142629

>Ravenclaw Bookworm wrote:
 

> snip that someone found 
> Sirius's will (identifying the first part of the chapter title). 
> 
> Dumbledore conjures Kreacher who appears, repeating "Kreacher 
> won't..." (the second half of the chapter title). 

Potioncat:
Oh, very good, I didn't pick up on that! There are also several 
places in the chapter where someone will or won't do something. In 
fact it starts out with Harry waiting to see if DD will come or won't 
come. 

For the first time ever in any book, I read the names of the chapters 
before I started the book. That led to all sorts of mistaken ideas on 
what was to come. So I thought I was ready after Snape's three "I 
Will" statement for "Will and Won't" to have some connection. We do 
end up with two individuals (Snape and Kreacher) having to obey when 
they would rather not. (At least IMHO.) 

Ravenclaw Bookworm: 
> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change 
your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Potioncat:
I hadn't given it a thought until you asked. But that means he was 
sending Aurors at Umbridge's request to shoot at Hargrid and Minerva. 
Not good, not good at all. He's in charge now and Umbridge is still 
there, although he must know how she mis-directed the Aurors under 
her authority.

> 
> Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the 
new 
> security measures?  What do you think she said that is hidden from 
> us?

Potioncat:
I don't think anything was hidden, but rather that JKR revealed the 
part we needed to know. Mrs. Longbottom has been a stalwart supporter 
of DD throughout the books.
> 
> Q5:  Do these measures seem reasonable?

Potioncat:
No, they're like some of the absolutely horrible advice that is out 
there in the RW now. 



> 
> Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the 
> Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's 
> orders to Kreacher still apply?

Potioncat:
Never mind that! Am I the only one who went "Ewww" at the thought of 
Kreacher in the Hogwarts kitchens? If I were Harry, I'd be owling for 
take out.
 
Very good summary and questions! I'll post on the others as soon as I 
get back to my regular computer. 








From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 02:31:01 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp181+tvbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051108023102.90105.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142630

snip...snip...snip

Reply to a-sevirn:

I don't quite understand what you're saying, do you
think DD was rude to the Dursleys or that he's usually
rude? I think DD is one of the most polite persons in
the world (not only in the WW). 

He treats Vernon and Petunia with respect, he admires
their home, he offers them drinks... He treats them
better than they deserve. If I had been there I would
have acted a lot more like Hagrid did!

Just look at the scene on top of the Astronomy tower:
He treats the DE with respect and even finds time to
chat!

I personally think he's an example of good manners and
"politeness"

As always, JMO


Juli
Aol: jlnbtr
Yahoo: jlnbtr





		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 02:33:50 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:33:50 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp181+tvbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp2qe+jqfg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142631

> >>Sherry:
> > Dumbledore's behavior to the Dursleys hardly counts as bullying 
> > to me, when I consider the years of hell Harry went through at   
> > their tender mercies.
> > Dumbledore's treatment was exactly right, in my opinion.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Well, it was Dumbledore who left him to their tender mercies in   
> the first place. They certainly didn't ask for the job. Besides,   
> what it has to say to anything? They may be as bad as they come,   
> but Dumbledore behaviour would still be a "glorious" bit of       
> bullying. 

Betsy Hp:
I'm conflicted with this scene.  On the one hand, I like that 
Dumbledore is angry with the Dursleys over their treatment of 
Harry.  (I've no doubt that Dumbledore was expressing some righteous 
rage while beaning the Dursleys over the head with the glasses of 
mead.)

But on the other, the Dursleys are so obviously terrified it kills 
some of the joy for me.  Once again, wizards have no problem 
physically assulting Muggles they dislike with powers the Muggles 
can't protect against.  Not even Dumbledore is immune.

It would have been nice if Dumbledore had taken the higher road.  
But we've already learned that Dumbledore is not perfect.  He can 
get angry, and he is angry at the Dursleys.  And he does, it seems, 
hold himself back.  (I like the idea, a_svirn, that Dumbledore has 
some guilt fueling his anger.  I'm sure he was never really pleased 
with the arrangement he came up with.)

I do think think this shows that Dumbledore could not have bullied 
the Dursleys into treating Harry better.  If he'd done something 
similar when Harry was young, I think Harry would have been on a 
street corner as soon as Dumbledore left Privet Drive and the 
Dursleys would have had their bags packed and plane tickets for 
parts unknown in their pockets.  Because the Dursleys *were* 
terrified, and yet they still refused to drink the mead.

Betsy Hp







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 02:36:44 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:36:44 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod)
In-Reply-To: <dkoucc+c7rf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp2vs+2sl0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142632

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

Super Magical Combining Powers--Activate!

> I don't know about 'common currency', but wouldn't a half-blood or
> muggleborn, who constitute a large percentage of the Hogwarts
> population, go clubbing or whatever on a saturday night over the
> summer?  And take their friends as they got older?  

If they choose to engage with that side of Muggle culture.  It's 
rather unclear whether most people who have been co-opted into the 
wizarding culture (as Hogwarts is designed to do) are interested in 
keeping that kind of social contact with the Muggle world.  Clubbing 
isn't like classical concert-going in that it's a much less isolated 
and much more social exercise.

There must be some percent of the population who ventures out of 
their cultural bubble, because people do marry Muggles.  We have a 
decidedly mixed picture on these relationships, though--many of them 
are based on deception, even ones which ultimately work out.  This 
points to the Muggle-fancying being decidedly personal and individual 
rather than a broader cultural influence.

> In so far as this concerns me, I don't think I ever actually posited
> Lucius as taking Snape to the opera.  I said, quote, "Lucius is the
> TYPE OF PERSON who goes to the opera and talks all the way through
> it".  

Except that Lucius is not even the 'type' of person who goes to the 
opera, for actual discussions of operatic culture.  First is that in 
a modern opera house of any sort, anyone who talks all the way 
through is going to be kicked out by an usher.  No exceptions. :)  
(That is, if the other people don't murder him first...)  Second is 
that operagoers tend to fall into a few classes, but two come to 
mind: the regulars, and the people who go for status reasons or 
because their companies/organizations support the opera/pay for the 
tickets.  There's no social gain for Lucius to be seen at the opera, 
because it's not a wizarding institution--would he *want* to be seen 
in a Muggle place like that?  Not good for his kind of PR, and not 
something he seems interested in.  So the 'interested music lover' 
option remains open, I guess, but doesn't seem likely, as I've given 
some reasons for in the past.

Okay, maybe as a loose analogy...but for discussions of actual music 
practice...

> PJ:

> But they do touch! Each and every time an 11 year old Muggle child 
> gets a letter from Hogwarts, that new student's music, sports, 
> literature and (perhaps) art preferences goes right to Hogwarts 
> along with them! Like Harry, these children could've been exposed 
> to all of this at their public schools as well as from their 
> parents. Also when they go home for the summer and holidays they 
> hear any of the new music they missed while at school.

But their access thereto is pretty limited while they're at 
Hogwarts.  The side-effect (or perhaps side purpose) of this is to 
integrate people into their new society, both skills-wise and in 
cultural interest.  Given the "wow shiny new!" features of magic, and 
the seeming overt superiority of magical versions of things (see 
photography for a particularly apt example), it's harder than not, I 
would think, to proselytize their cultural interests to other 
students.  And we've seen that students do gradually become alienated 
from their 'home' culture; Hermione is a good example of this.  
Therefore I'm skeptical of just how much cultural interchange can 
really be promoted.

a_svirn:

> I suppose there are popular musics elsewhere, but either they are
> rock and thus derivative or they are something else and thus they
> are something else. For instance if, say, the scale of Chinese music
> is pentatonic you can hardly expect the popular tunes based on it to
> be anything like those based on a diatonic seven-note scale. Of
> course, the great break-up with muggles occurred only in the end of
> the 17th century, so there wouldn't be much difference where scales
> and pitches are concerned, but still I can hardly imagine wizards
> coming up with anything "rock-like" on their own.

Pentatony can be conceptualized as a subset of the diatonic scale, 
you know. :)  Melodic formation...okay, that's getting way too far 
afield for onlist, I think.  And tuning and temperament is the 
discussion from the deep pits.  But it is amazing how easily music 
cultures borrow and adapt ideas from other cultures, very quickly but 
in totally idiosyncratic ways.

>> Nora:
>> The whole idea of 'pure' culture is pretty laughable, of course.

> a_svirn:
> Whose idea is that?

The idea that any music culture is completely uncontaminated by 
influences from other cultures; I don't think it's been floated out 
overtly here, but postulating complete and utter separation between 
Muggle and Wizarding music cultures would get close to such a claim, 
given their temporal and geographic proximity.

-Nora would bet that no standard music theory book has made it into 
the Hogwarts library, though...






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 02:44:07 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:44:07 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp3dn+ar7i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142633

<Snip excellent Chapter summary by Ravenclaw Bookworm>

Q1: Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry? Is this a
grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

Goddlefrood:

After the atrocious way in which Harry was treated throughout OotP 
what else could the Ministry do but come crawling back and most 
probably originate the name "the Chosen One". It most certainly is a 
change in attitude quite probably at the instigation of Fudge as a 
parting gesture, remember we have previously learned in Chapter One 
that Fudge made a last ditch bid to retain power. This then answers 
the second part of the question also in that the campaign almost 
definitely originated from the MOM itself.

In OotP as well there is little initial support from the wider 
wizarding world for Harry's assertions that LV had returned. Only 
after the article in the Quibbler do some wizards and witches 
indicate their belief in Harry, yet even this is not universal. It 
is only after LV is exposed at the MOM that Harry is restored to his 
full credibility and on that basis the view that the MOM 
rehabilitated Harry by dubbing him the chosen one is a sound one.

Q2: How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your
interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

The impression given by the Auror's Office in OotP is that the 
number one concern is the recapture of Sirius Black. The only other 
showing from the Aurors is when Dawlish accompanies Fudge and 
Kingsley to oust Dumbledore which suggests that the MOM was in 
complete denial, understandably IMO particularly in view of the 
remembered horrors of Voldwar I.

The actual interpretation would not change. What would be concluded 
from this fact is that Fudge held the ultimate veto over what the 
MOM did. It needn't disparage Scrimgeour as he is answerable to the 
Minister so even if he had believed that LV had returned he did as 
he was told. This also fits with the character portrayed in HBP. 
Scrimgeour seems nothing but a conformist and does not appear to be 
someone who would want to rock the boat.

Q3: Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use
Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry. Do you think
this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ?
that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore
refused? Or do you think there are some long-standing issues
between them?

Quite simply the answer to the first aspect is yes and to the second 
no. Later in HBP, and as usual I do not have it before me, 
Dumbledore himself says that the argument between he and Scrimgeour 
did indeed arise from Dumbledore's refusal to allow Harry to meet 
with the Minister, at least he does not disavow Harry of this when 
questioned by Harry.

Q4: Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the new
security measures? What do you think she said that is hidden from
us?

>From what little has been gleaned regarding Augusta it would seem 
unlikely that she was reassured by the security measures. I am of 
the view that Augusta is a powerful witch and we will hopefully see 
more of her in Book 7. Her offspring became a respected Auror 
(Frank) and her grandson is turning out well despite early set 
backs. It would be wonderful to think that she said something along 
the lines of "Oo, I was so thrilled that Neville was involved in the 
restraining of the Death Eaters at the Department of Mysteries. 
Without him the day may have been lost, he is truly a credit to his 
parents and family."

Q5: Do these measures seem reasonable?

Not really. As Dumbledore says if he were a Death Eater he would 
have made sure to find out what his favourite jam was, and as the 
leaflets are undoubtedly also distributed to Death Eater families, 
and / or the Death Eaters would have access to them it seems rather 
a stretch to believe that the Death Eaters would not be able to 
circumvent the measures quite easily.

Q6: We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave. In
what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?

The only function we have seen is that they guard the Horcrux in the 
cave. That they can be held off by fire should be known to most 
competent wizards. Fletch is incarcerated for impersonating one thus 
inferring to us that Inferi are elsewhere also. 

What use could one have for a zombie?

The Inferi do not appear to move all that quickly so other than 
guarding objects and intimidation through the threat of using them 
they are not so useful. I do believe, however, that when LV referred 
to an army that all fear he was meaning the Inferi.

*Lightbulb* - Were the dead at the Bridge Inferi, placed for the 
purposes of making the Muggle world believe there had been carnage?

Q7: Is Harry's pessimism justified? Do you think he has reason to
believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will?

Was Harry pessimistic about leaving the Dursleys? I think not, it 
appeared as if he could not wait to leave and was looking forward 
with great eagerness to Dumbledore's arrival. Harry is concerned 
whether or not Dumbledore will actually arrive as stated, but there 
is no real basis for this concern. When has Dumbledore let Harry 
down (apart from leaving him with the Dursleys, not telling him 
about his history until the end of his fifth year, not mentioning 
the real reason why he trusts Snape etc. etc.)

Q8: What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here?

Rather intimidating actually. He tries to force the Dursleys to 
drink when they have previously declined to do so. He uses magic 
quite cavalierly when making them sit down and banging the glasses 
against their foreheads and doesn't really give them much 
opportunity to speak. He assumes that they will have no qualms about 
allowing Harry to return once more and actually singularly fails to 
explain any of their concerns.

All in all rather rude and lacking in manners. He is a guest in the 
Dursleys home but acts rather as if he owns the place to sum up.

Q9: Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12
Grimmauld Place? Why not move someplace friendlier? Do they
secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black? <g> Is it because Phineas's
portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?

I don't think we will see a great deal more of the Order itself. 
Individual members yes, but the Order as a whole. I, however, the 
Order does remain largely intact and continues in its efforts to 
thwart LV then it would be more likely that it would meet at 
Hogwarts and not return to Number Twelve. This is not to say that we 
will not see Number Twelve again, we undoubtedly will when Harry 
retrieves the heavy locket obtained by Mrs. Black from the cave.

Q10: Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?
Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of
the house?

See above, answer to 9. What makes you think there are any pleasant 
memories at Number Twelve?

Q11: Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something more
significant?

Seems to me as if Vernon may be thinking that he could now be 
repayed for all the time he has looked after Harry with no further 
significance.

Q12: Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the
Order. Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore? Or do Sirius's
orders to Kreacher still apply?

Just because this is not specifically stated does not mean it is not 
so. Think of the Marauder's Map at the end of Goblet of Fire. It is 
one of those things that is of little significance. The Order and 
its members must be known to LV through Snape anyway so there would 
be no real necessity to ensure that their identities remained secret 
any further. If they were known of they still need to be located to 
neutralize and I would be surprised if there were not a number of 
Fidelius charms still in effect. Kreacher has caused more than 
enough problems and it seems that, however grudging he may be, he 
has to follow all orders ever given to him by masters both alive and 
dead. That was how he managed to get out of Number Twelve in OotP 
and only by misinterpreting as he did then could he have any use to 
LV or any Death Eaters.

Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now? Why not 5 years ago? At
this point, why say it at all?

A kind of farewell to them as he may know that it would be the last 
time he saw them in either of the scenarios where he is time 
traveling or where he has already set up his death with Severus. It 
also serves as a warning to them of what may be to come. This would 
be where the whole suspicion I have that Aunt Petunia will be the 
one to do magic later in life in desperate circumstances would come 
in, but I'll save that for another post.

Q14: Will there be consequences for either Harry or Dudley in
Dumbledore's having done this?

If the Dursleys give it some thought, which is unlikely, then it 
could lead to their becoming a little stricter with Diddykins, but 
this is quite unlikely based on their bewilderment at what 
Dumbledore said.

Q15: What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of age"
that would cause the protection to end?

One day I hope to post a thorough discussion of this issue, so look 
out for that if you have the patience and / or inclination.

Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

Perhaps she secretly enjoys the link to her deceased sister and is 
rather upset at the prospect of losing her relationship with Lily's 
last surviving relative. Or she downed a lot of mead in a short time 
and took on a rosy complexion.

Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?

He has to return for Aunt Petunia to do magic in extraordinary 
circumstances and additionally he appreciates that what Dumbledore 
has told him has rarely steered him wrong.

Goddlefrood with no comments on the overall situation of the first 
three chapters.






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  8 03:04:15 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:04:15 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkovjc+r63v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp4jf+dt6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142634


> a_svirn:
> What custom did Dumbledore follow? He came uninvited and took the 
> position of his host; I'd like you to direct me to any book or site 
> where such behaviour would be described as customary or as an 
> example of good manners. Of course, it may be that wizards customary 
> deal with muggles in that fashion. After all we saw Scrimgeour doing 
> just that in the Prime Minister's office. 
> 
><snip>
> You know, when I'm at home *I* am the one who does the offerings, be 
> it a place to seat, a refreshment, or a conversational gambit. To 
> seat before it's suggested by your host IS rude. To offer a drink to 
> your host IS rude. To demand any such thing even in the "shell we 
> assume" form IS rude. Because ALL THIS IS A PREROGATIVE OF YOUR 
> HOST. And if I don't want to see a visitor, to entertain them and to 
> let them in *my* house I am within my rights to simply refuse to do 
> any such thing. It is not polite to trespass on my property (in fact 
> it's a criminal offence), impose on my privacy and practically give 
> orders in my own place all the while preaching manners. 
> 

Valky now:
:) 

Dumbledores behaviour that night would not strictly be bullying under
the rules of etiquette in civil custom of 'proper' people like the
Durselys. It's called, rather, pressing one's advantage, something
that Dumbledore, as an official acquaintance of the Dursleys, could
always do, and yet, has refrained brilliantly from doing in more than
a decade of knowing them. 

The fact is the Dursleys bully like they do, because the customs allow
them to 'press advantage' and remain civilised people under their
social rules. It is not Dumbledore who is at fault, but the rules
themselves. They allow for it, and the Durselys were cornered within
their own standard of good behaviour.

A few points:

Dumbledore was not trespassing, he sent a forwarding announcement of
his intent to come. This is why Vernon could not say "You are
trespassing, get off my land." because according to *his* own
standards and customs Dumbledore was there on a good faith
misunderstanding. 

Dumbledore had maintained the acquaintance between himself in the
Dursleys in proper fashion through regular correspondence. By the
rules of the custom Dumbledore's eventual visit is expected *of
Dumbledore*. It would be more rude *not* to turn up someday for a
visit. Dumbledore has done the right thing by visiting, and Vernon
knows it. 

In the case of a misunderstanding, Vernon could say, with a reasonable
excuse for refusing a known civil acquaintances, who have mistakenly
expected your hospitality, the customary ten minutes of your time as a
courtesy, that he couldn't accept Dumbledore into his home. There are
few reasonable excuses for not giving a long known acquaintance ten
minutes when he is weary from his travel to your home to do *you* the
courtesy of a customary visit. Again Vernon knows darn well that he
should give Dumbledore a ten minute courtesy, he is not a stranger and
he has so far *done nothing uncivilised* according to Vernon's
standards. Vernon is trapped by his own social standard. 

It is customary for a guest to bring a gift, and a bottle of nice
drink is the most acceptable an proper gift in the book. 

I'd like to direct you to some online text on the customs but
unfortunately there are none available, you may have to find a book on
the subject.


 
> 
> > Valky:
> > Now this I absolutely agree with,<snip> Any other thoughts?
> 
> a_svirn:
> My thought is that Harry has learned to recognise bullying when he 
> sees it.
>


Valky:
Well I agree, *you* could rightly call Dumbledore's intrusion
bullying. If you hold yourself to this standard and would say outright
to Dumbledore "On your bike, mate" regardless of what he had done so
far that was within custom, then that is your choice of course, and
Dumbeldore would most likely approach you differently. In Vernon's
culture 'proper' people don't do that. 

My point is that JKR could well be demonstrating here that Vernon
undoes himself by the standard he holds to and uses for bullying
others. In which case - two things - 1. I agree with SSSusan and
Sherry, It serves the Dursleys right! and 2. It's darn funny and
reminds me of Keeping up Appearances an hilarious British comedy of
the same.

Valky

 







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 03:05:19 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:05:19 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp181+tvbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp4lf+q5bu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142635

> > SSSusan:
<snip>
 I thought he treated the Dursleys *exactly* as 
> they 
> > deserved to be treated... not to mention treating Harry to the 
> > attention he needed and deserved in that moment as well.
> > 
> 
a_svirn: 
> I can see why you could squeal with delight, but as for calling 
his 
> behaviour "polite"
 Surely you must be mistaken. <snip>
> Granted, Dumbledore did the thing with his usual style yet it 
wasn't 
> his superior manners he was demonstrating but the upper hand. 

Alla:

I suspect that I will be arguing semantics again, but here is what I 
think. I DO believe that Dumbledore was being polite. But the 
meaning of word "polite" I am using is to " use kind words", no more 
than that.

I do NOT think that Dumbledore was being RESPECTFUL to Dursleys, in 
that I suspect I agree with a_svirn. Am I making sense? He was being 
polite as in "using formalities", but definitely not respecting them 
as people.

But I completely agree with  the part of SSSusan's argument which I 
left in, Dumbledore treated Durlseys exactly as they deserved to be 
treated. 
I don't know whether JKR wrote this scene because Harry needed to 
hear it or some readers did ( myself definitely included), but I am 
absolutely happy that she did.

a_svirn: 
> And did you notice: Harry was not even remotely delighted with 
this 
> little demonstration. He was anxious to leave. Wonder what he was 
> reminded of. 

Alla:

Harry wants to leave BEFORE Dumbledore starts his litle 
demonstration, well he comes in, but does not do anything else yet.
 I interpreted it that Harry is very anxious to leave the Dursleys 
indeed. I did not interpret it  that Harry wanted to leave because 
he was unhappy with how Dumbledore treated Dursleys. JMO of course

> a_svirn:
> 
> Well, it was Dumbledore who left him to their tender mercies in 
the 
> first place. They certainly didn't ask for the job. 

Alla:

True, true of course Dumbledore left Harry there and if Petunia was 
not Lily's sister, I would completely agree with you. No matter how 
much I hate the characters of Dursleys, they did NOT ask for the job 
of caring for Harry. BUT to me and to me only the fact that Petunia 
IS Lily's sister changes everything.

Many people would argue that the fact of blood relation does not 
matter. To me it so does. I grew up believing that family members or 
at least close family members should help each other and care for 
each other. I still believe so.

a_svirn:
Besides, what it 
> has to say to anything? They may be as bad as they come, but 
> Dumbledore behaviour would still be a "glorious" bit of bullying.

Alla:

To me this scene was another example of "poetic justice" or " 
vicarious retribution".


> > Sherry:
> I thought it was wonderful.  still
> > one of my favorite scenes in all the books.  It was someone else 
> being rude
> > to them on Harry's behalf for a change.  fantastic!

Alla:

Yep. Me too. :-)


> 
> a_svirn:
> What do you mean "for a change"? We have seen wizards being rude 
to 
> them on Harry's behalf from the book 1.
>

Alla:

Could you refresh my recollection, please? Do you mean those who 
came to Vernon on the street to congratulate him in PS/SS?
If yes, I don't see it as rudeness, but more like desire to share 
the overwhelming happiness with anybody, even with Vernon. 

JMO,

Alla






From hg_skmg at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 03:04:43 2005
From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:04:43 -0000
Subject: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkogse+qhoc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp4kb+m5eq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142636

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote 
(big snip):
> And did you notice: Harry was not even remotely delighted with this 
> little demonstration. He was anxious to leave. Wonder what he was 
> reminded of. 
> 

hg:
I know what I'm reminded of -- the scene in which Arthur is challenging 
Vernon to say goodbye to Harry.  Harry says forget it, or something to 
that effect, and Arthur won't drop it (until the Ton Tongue Toffee 
Dudley eats interrupts the moment).  Interesting comparison.

hg.





From va32h at comcast.net  Tue Nov  8 02:51:37 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:51:37 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
In-Reply-To: <dkokht+8rf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp3rp+lm29@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142637

> Lucianam writes:
"Not that I ever understood JKR's take on Sirius. She practically had
him star two books - PoA and OotP - and now she's practically
ignored his death in HBP. Sirius's appearances in the HP series have
been sort like a rollercoaster."

va32h:
I have just been perusing Madam Scoop's and came across an interview 
where JKR mentions that Sirius' death was a "battlefield death". 

That comment and Lucianam's comments above gelled with something my 
husband told me when he returned from Iraq last spring. 

He spoke of meeting people and forging strong bonds with them in a 
very short period of time - because you were alone and needed to trust 
and depend on relative strangers for your very life. Then this person, 
with whom you had been so close, would simply be gone - sent home, 
sent to another unit, or killed, seemingly at random. 

There is just no time for closure - the war goes on, a fresh batch of 
soliders arrives, and one must form the same connections and bonds 
with new people. 

So with all this in mind, I now see Harry and Sirius as "battlefield 
brothers" brought together for this war. Perhaps many years from now 
Harry, like many veterans, will start to truly mourn for those he has 
lost. 

va32h









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 03:55:19 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:55:19 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp7j7+r3po@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142638

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
> 3, Will and Won't.> 
<snip summary> 
> 
> Q1:  Does this [the reference to Harry as "The Chosen One"] signal a
change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a grassroots change or a
campaign started by the Ministry?

Carol:
I think that, as always, the Daily Prophet is a mouthpiece for the
MoM, influenced by its policies. (Any freedom of the press it
experienced took the form of sensationalism and distortion courtesy of
Rita Skeeter, who is now apparently out of the picture.) It's
convenient for the MoM, now under a new minister, to acknowledge
Harry's existence and play up his celbrity status. Now, given the
battle at the MoM, they have slightly more to work with than his
miraculous survival as an infant. I doubt that there's a grassroots
campaign, only the fickle public clinging to an old hope revived. At
least now, in contrast to his first encounter with his celebrity
status in SS/PS, Harry knows that the best way to deal with both fame
and infamy is to ignore them.


> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your 
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

Carol:
As Collin mentioned, we first encounter Scrimgeour in OoP apparently
regarding Tonks and Shacklebolt with suspicion regarding the
whereabouts of Sirius Black (which they're concealing by pretending
that he's hiding in Tibet). Now that Black has been revealed (to Fudge
by Dumbledore) as a member of the Order, and is also conveniently
dead, Scrimgeour seems to have set aside his suspicions, giving
Shacklebolt the seemingly important undercover job of working as a
secretary to the Muggle PM. (Tonks is sent by the new head of the
Aurors as one of the guards at Hogwarts.) It remains to be seen
whether he still mistrusts them (or they him). Dumbledore refers to
Scrimgeour in the next chapter as "able" but does not directly answer
Harry's question as to whether he's "good," which raises questions as
to how Scrimgeour might choose to fight Voldemort and the Death Eaters
(setting aside token arrests and propaganda). If he was one of the
Aurors who used Unforgiveable Curses under Crouch's authorization, the
WW could be in for an ugly war or the WW equivalent of a police state.
I don't think that Scrimgeour is incompetent like Fudge or evil like
the Death Eaters, but I think he could be very dangerous. Crouch
wasn't evil, either, but he became more and more authoritarian and was
corrupted and finally destroyed by resorting to using evil to fight
evil. Scrimgeour is "a man of action" (DD's description in the next
chapter). He's like a police captain promoted to prime minister, who
conceives his new role in military as well as political terms. If he
were a Muggle, he'd be a general instituting military rule. Watch for
the guidelines in the pamphlets about staying home at night to become
curfews and a network of spies adding to the general air of mistrust
in Book 7. 
> 

> Q3:  Events later in the book show us that Scrimgeour tries to use 
> Harry to get some positive publicity for the Ministry.  Do you think 
> this is what caused the rift between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore ? 
> that Scrimgeour wanted to set up a meeting with Harry and Dumbledore 
> refused?  Or do you think there are some long-standing issues 
> between them?

Carol:
Hard to say. I don't think he had any part in DD's being sacked from
the Wizengamot, but maybe he has links to Umbridge? Could he have had
anything to do with the Dementors on Privet Drive in OoP? Or at least
with the Dementors at Hogwarts in PoA? As I said, Dumbledore is
careful to distinguish between his abilities and his "goodness." As I
said, I don't think he's evil, but I doubt that he's scrupulous in the
methods that he uses to fight evil--or run the government. (BTW, I
wonder if he still controls the Aurors and whether they'll
specifically target Snape.) The "rift" between DD and Hogwarts could
concern the new security measures if DD prefers to handle such matters
himself. (Not that either of them succeeded in the end. . . .)

> 
> Q4:  Is Mrs. Longbottom one of those who "seem reassured" by the new 
> security measures [at Hogwarts]?  What do you think she said that is
hidden from us [under Hedwig's cage]?

Carol:
Well, the lead-in to the quote suggests that she's one of those
people. But the quote itself is cut off before we see her stand (if
any) on that issue. What she seems interested in, for the first time
in the HP books, is praising her grandson an pointing out that he
fought alongside Harry Potter against the Death Eaters at the MoM. So
Neville's fear that his gran would "kill him" for breaking his
father's wand is unjustified; she's proud of him instead (seeing Frank
in him, presumably). I hope the whole point in including her wasn't
merely to placate readers who have been critical of Mrs. Longbottom,
but that was my impression as I read it. (But also, we know that she
supports Dumbledore, so it's odd that she would be quoted as a
supporter of the MoM's safety measures unless she's unaware of a rift
between DD and Scrimgeour. And of course, he main concern would be
Neville's safety.) I'm assuming that she's fairly well-known in the
British WW given her pureblood status, her age, and her connection
with the Crucio'd Frank and Alice, so maybe the MoM wants to be
associated with her as well as with Harry. (Whether the publicity for
Neville is a good thing is another matter, but Bellatrix, at least,
already knew he was at the MoM.)

> 
> Q5:  Do these measures [in the MoM security pamphlet] seem reasonable?

Carol responds:
They remind me of the monthly newsletters sent out by the sheriff's
department with tips on protecting yourself from car theft and your
latch-key kids from kidnapping--common sense advice raised a notch to
create a bit of anxiety in the reader (poly-juiced DEs! Inferi!). So,
yes, it's good for people to be on the watch for these things. But,
aside from Side-Along Apparition as an escape mechanism, they really
don't give much practical advice. The part about security questions
comes across almost as a joke in the next chapter). Shield Charms
would be a workable defense against some curses, but I don't think
they work against the Unforgiveables, do they? (If they do, they'd
deflect the Imperios and Crucios back onto the Death Eaters. Hoist
with their own petard!) But still, there must be more they can do. Or
maybe not. If Amelia Bones couldn't defend herself, who can?
> 
> Q6:  We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave.  In 
> what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?

Carol:
Like Sherry, I thought of "Night of the Living Dead" when I read about
Inferi. (Horrible! I wish I'd never seen that movie!) But *are* Inferi
zombies, who can create others like themselves, or do they only--well,
leave mangled corpses like those in Snape's DADA posters? I don't
think I want to know, actually. Forget I said anything.

> 
> Q7:  Is Harry's pessimism [regarding Dumbledore's arrival and an
early departure from the Dursleys] justified?  Do you think he has
reason to believe that Dumbledore will not do as he says he will? 

Carol responds:
We as readers know that Dumbledore will come through, but after all
that Harry went through in OoP, with Dumbledore so distant for most of
the year, it's understandable that he would have some doubts. But I
think that his pessimism (clearly combined with hope given the cheek
against the window and the often-read note) is a defense mechanism. If
you hope for something and it doesn't happen, you'll be disappointed.
but if you tell yourself it might not happen, you shield yourself
against disappointment. Or at least, that's the way it's supposed to
work. (BTW, did anyone besides me think that Harry resembled a much
younger child waiting hopefully, but ever so slightly skeptically, for
Santa Claus?)

> 
> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior [toward the Dursleys]? 

Carol responds:
I'm wondering whether from the perspective of younger American
readers, Dumbledore's behavior seems rather quaint. Etiquette, like
conversation and letter writing (and penmanship!), is something of a
lost art here. As an older American who laments the loss, I found his
attempts at courtesy in the face of incivility intriguing. I'm sure
that the Durselys felt threatened when he raised his wand, but he only
sends the sofa beneath them and then scoots it back, and then serves
his hosts and himself and Harry his own (conjured) mead. I did find
the glasses knocking against the Dursley's heads rather rude at first,
but then I realized that that wasn't so much DD's doing as the glasses
wanting their contents to be drunk. If the Dursleys had drunk the
mead, they'd have had no problem. As for talking to Harry as if they
weren't there, he needed to inform him of certain matters before he
left, and they could have joined in the conversation if they'd chosen
to do so. And it's understandable, of course, that he didn't explain
his injured hand when Harry asked about it. Bringing Kreacher into
Petunia's clean house? She'll survive.

Regarding the mead, which no one else has discussed: Again, as an
American, I was a bit surprised at how casually DD served two underage
boys an alcoholic drink. (We don't drink mead in America, and I
associate it with Anglo-Saxon mead-halls, so I had to look it up to
see exactly what it is. I gather that it's like a cross between brandy
and ale, but of course, I'm probably quite wrong.) At any rate, I'm
sure that Harry felt quite grown up drinking it, and I'm surprised
that Dudley didn't try. Maybe he thought it would turn him into a pig.
DD serving the Dursleys his *own* mead is a nice contrast to Fudge,
who serves the Muggle PM his own whiskey, but it also introduces
Dumbledore's fondness for Madam Rosmerta's oak-matured mead,
foreshadowing the poisoned mead incident later in the book. (I've
forgotten how Draco discovers DD's fondness for the mead; maybe he
overhears Slughorn ordering it as a Christmas present? And why are the
bottles always dusty, even when they're conjured? How can DD conjure
*Madam Rosmerta's* mead? Well, never mind.)

I was going to answer the remaining questions, but I think I'll make
it a second post as this one is getting too long.

Carol








From glcherry at bellsouth.net  Tue Nov  8 03:57:23 2005
From: glcherry at bellsouth.net (stardancerofas)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:57:23 -0000
Subject: Life, death & Existing (was Managing Dead Sirius)
Message-ID: <dkp7n3+ri7b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142639

Quite a few members have been discussing our beloved Padfoot (way too
many for me to remember you all with the amount of posting going on.
Forgive me.), and his possible return to the 'Land of the Living' via
Harry / Voldemort going through the Veil.

So, I'll throw this idea into the mix as well.

Suppose the does indeed happen. Harry / Voldemort pass on as it were,
but instead of Harry 'returning' to this world he 'lives' in the one
beyond.

To 'this' world he would be dead, but in that world he would surely
live, and not only with Voldemort -- 'redeemed', 'destroyed' whatever.
He would have a 'life' with his parents, his Godfather, all the rest
of the family.
Voldemort would no longer exist, therefor the 'WW' as Harry knew it
would be saved.

Now, tear it to pieces :)
Lorrie






From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov  8 03:57:50 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:57:50 -0500
Subject: Snape in love? Snape's loyalities?
In-Reply-To: <bf.6407e455.30a0a27d@aol.com>
References: <bf.6407e455.30a0a27d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4370223E.104@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142640

Zehms wrote:
> Was Snape "in love" with her, I don't know...and I know many fans
> cringe at the thought, but what would sway DD's opinion about Snape
> more than a repentance story based on 'love'?

Bart:
One of the major things that pushed me into thinking that love for Lily 
was Prof. Snape's major motivation was the theme of love being the 
strongest magic. Also, use of Lily to control Snape may well have been 
Voldemort's motive in initially sparing her life.


Zehms:
> I know many fans point to Snape calling Lily a "filthy little
> Mudblood" in OOTP, however, I would suggest as socially inept as
> Snape is he was acting out as a elementary school child who has a
> crush on a little girl, calling Lily a name to deflect the fact that
> he 'likes' her.

Bart:
And, remember, they were 15 at the time. 15 is probably the most 
confused age.


Zehms:
> I think Professor Snape is JKR's most complex character. I think
> Snape has become a perpetual red herring throughout the series (and
> after book 6 this trend continues), primarily because even when he
> saves or helps Harry, Hermione, Ron, or a member of the order his
> demeanor is so, well repulsive. His loathing of a character we all
> love, Harry Potter, makes Snape as a character difficult to like, on
> top of that he is rude an hurtful to Hermione, and he relentlessly
> torments loveable Neville Longbottom-quite truthfully he is VERY EASY
> TO HATE.

Bart:
But love for Lily is a reason why Snape's feelings about Harry are so 
complex. Lily would not have died if it weren't for Harry (consider, for 
example, in Charles Dickens' A CHRISTMAS CAROL, Freddy, Scrooge's 
nephew, is continually rebuffed by Scrooge, as Srooge's beloved sister 
died giving birth to Freddy, and Scrooge never forgave him). And, even 
worse, Harry resembles Snape's successful rival for Lily's affections. 
Yet, he has Lily's eyes, and is all that remains of her, and, if Harry 
dies, then Lily's sacrifice is rendered meaningless. In the meantime, 
Harry's continued presence is a constant reminder to Snape of what he 
lost, which is why, although he does not want to see Harry dead, he 
would much prefer for Harry to be somewhere (ANYWHERE) else, even if 
it's by means of expulsion.

Zehms:
> In Book 7 I just want to know how Snape earned Dumbledore's trust, I
> want Snape to be worth Dumbledore's sacrafice, but most of all I want
> Dumbledore to be right! If Snape was always a traitor, then
> Dumbledore has been played a fool, and that is a wretched way to end
> Dumbledore's life-as a great wizard who in the end has been
> "hoodwinked" by a repulsive character like Snape.

Bart:
One thing I've noticed numerous times in the series (and disliked) is 
the fact that most of the adults, especially those in authority are 
either evil or fools; much like Disney movies. Dumbledore is the major 
exception, and it is also established that he never quite let go of the 
child within himself (for example, use of types of candies as his 
password). But he always clearly seems to know a lot more than he's 
saying (and, as Prof. John Algeo, noted philogist and Harry Potter fan, 
has pointed out, "dumb" can mean "does not talk"). It would completely 
violate the character to have made him THAT gullible.

As I have (mis)stated before, to me, the biggest clue to Snape's loyalty 
was the fact that he was the one who notified the OOP about the raid on 
the Ministry, and it was not mentioned in his "confession" to Mrs. Malfoy.
Bart







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  8 04:28:24 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:28:24 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp9h8+rkob@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142641

(Waves a 'thanks!' to Ravenclaw Bookworm, wonders vaguely whether 
SSSusan and Petra left a few brownies....)

> Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of
> age" that would cause the protection to end?  

Jen: JKR said in an interview* after HBP: "That protection won't 
continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no 
longer given that protective aura by his mother.." I thought it must 
have been the charm Dumbledore performed & Petunia sealed which 
would expire, but it sounds like something inherent to the ancient 
magic of the sacrifice.

(*ITV interview, July 2005)

> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

Jen: My first thought about the flushing was Petunia felt embarassed-
-that's what causes me to flush! But I don't know if Petunia is 
capable of feeling that about Harry. Fear for her family would be 
more in keeping with what we know about her character. 

Dumbledore's reminder that Harry's protection will end soon, and his 
request for Harry to return one last time, brought about the odd 
flushing. How would that particular set of events affect *Petunia*? 
Shouldn't she be glad to be done with it all? 

Then I remembered the point JKR made that Petunia and Dumbledore had 
private correspondence prior to the letter left on the doorstep. 
Dumbledore may have been warning her that Voldemort was targeting 
the Potters, and had somehow learned about Petunia along the way. My 
guess is this was one piece of information passed by Pettigrew which 
found its way back to Dumbledore, and caused him to suspect a spy 
close to the Potters. 

To conclude (and this isn't a new idea), I think the blood 
protection goes both ways and protects Petunia and Dudley as well as 
Harry--notice how Petunia snaps to and mistakenly corrects 
Dumbledore that Harry will be an adult at 18 instead of 17? I think 
she's already been considering what they will do when Harry leaves, 
and is alarmed to hear the separation will come a year sooner, and 
likely before Voldemort is dead.


Jen








From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 04:31:20 2005
From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:31:20 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scrimgeour_(WAS:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T)?=
In-Reply-To: <dkp7j7+r3po@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp9mo+dih9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142642

Meri:
(Regarding Scrimgeour) .... but due to the fact that he [Scrimgeour]
still had a job at the ministry shows that he didn't make 
too much noise about anything. He seems like a strong guy, and 
. I 
wonder if he picked up on Kingsley's misdirection of the search for 
Sirius, and whether or not he had anything to say about Harry's 
treatment by the wizengamot.

Goddlefrood:
...Scrimgeour ... is answerable to the Minister so even if he had 
believed that LV had returned he did as he was told. This also fits 
with the character portrayed in HBP. Scrimgeour seems nothing but a 
conformist and does not appear to be someone who would want to rock 
the boat.

Carol:
If he was one of the Aurors who used Unforgiveable Curses under 
Crouch's authorization, the WW could be in for an ugly war or the WW 
equivalent of a police state.  I don't think that Scrimgeour is 
incompetent like Fudge or evil like the Death Eaters, but I think he 
could be very dangerous. 

Bookworm:
Reading both of these responses made me wonder ? was Scrimgeour just 
following Fudge's authority?  Or was he the ambitious councilor 
behind the scenes feeding suggestions to Fudge?  He has retained 
Umbridge, even after her appalling behavior at the end of OoP and 
her admission that she sent the dementors after Harry in Little 
Whinging.  He has kept Fudge on as a consultant.  

I agree with Carol's interpretation, here.  The fact that Scrimgeous 
came from the auror office, gives me concern.  Little hints here and 
there that indicate to me that the change in Ministers may not have 
been a good thing.

- - change of subject - - 
Goddlefrood:
(Referring to the Dursleys)  He [Dumbledore] assumes that they will 
have no qualms about allowing Harry to return once more and actually 
singularly fails to explain any of their concerns.  

Bookworm:
If you notice, after Dumbledore made this request, he waited for a 
few moments for the Dursleys to respond.  They do not.  Only when it 
was apparent that the Dursleys weren't going to answer did 
Dumbledore turn to leave.

Ravenclaw Bookworm







From downtownnac at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 04:37:09 2005
From: downtownnac at yahoo.com (Justin)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:37:09 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
Message-ID: <dkpa1l+r8r0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142643

No doubt, the current consensus is that RAB is Regulus Black. 
Personally, I think that is total nonsense for a number of reasons. 
The only reason that he is candidate number one is due to the 
initials RAB. However, if we have learned anything from Rowling, it 
is never to trust in a name (ie Riddle turned out to be Voldemort, 
The HBP was Snape). Knowing how crafty Rowling is with her names, 
and how nothing is ever as it seems in her wizarding world, why does 
most of the HP fan base believe that she would now, so close to the 
end, deliever us such an obvious clue to one of the biggest 
mysteries thus far? Furthermore, if we are going to base RAB 
candidates soley on initials, the why hasn't Amelia Bones been given 
more discussion. 

No. I believe that RAB is neither of these wizards. In fact, I don't 
believe that RAB is a wizard at all. I believe that RAB is nothing 
more than a squib. That's right, I propose that RAB is non other 
than Argus Filch. Here's why.

1) Access - Whoever RAB is, they had to know an awful lot about 
Voldemort. Filch keeps detailed records of every student at 
Hogwarts, especially the trouble makers (the Weasley twins have two 
drawers devoted to them). Plus he has been at Hogwarts far longer 
than any of the other staff members (remember that when Dumbledore 
cam aboard, he ended Filch's torture-disipline). He was there when 
Riddle walked the halls and the Death-Eaters were being formed. 

Furthermore, they had to know something about Holocruxes. To date we 
know of only six who know anything on the subject: Dumbledore, 
Voldemort, Sluggy, Harry, Ron and Hermione. Whoever found out had to 
have access to one, or all of these people. Filch knew them all. 
Did, anyone ever sit down and have a conversation with Filch on the 
subject? Probably not, but remember what Filch's job is at Hogwarts. 
He is the night watchman. It's his job to keep tabs on everything 
that goes on at Hogwarts. The name Argus is a greek reference that 
roughly means 200 eyes. If anyone would have overheard people 
talking on the subject, it would have been Filch. 

2) Capability - Now, this is the section where people really wonder. 
How could a squib have gotten through all the nasty traps that 
nearly killed Dumbledore. Well, perhaps being a squib was what 
allowed him to bypass those traps. Just as Sauron never anticipated 
a Hobbit being his undoing, did Voldemort ever consider the fact 
that a non magic user would attempt to steal his holocrux? That 
place was set up to defend against powerful wizards like Dumbledore, 
not against a simple squib and his cat. 

Furthermore, everyone assumes that just because Filch cannot cast, 
he knows nothing about magic. Remember what Filch does for a living. 
He disiplines wizards! Pretty impresive for someone who can't cast a 
simgle spell. Plus, no one knows Hogwarts better than Filch and 
Hogwarts is the best defended institution in the wizarding world. 
That place is filled with every kind of magical trap and defense, 
and Filch knows them all. Filch does know something about bypassing 
magical defenses. Also, just because Filch can't cast, nothing says 
that he can't use a potion or a magical item. Filch has the keys to 
every drawer of scrolls, restricted book, potion cabinet and secret 
room in Hogwarts. If Filch ever need a powerful magical item, he has 
access to some of the most powerful in the wizarding world. 

3) Motivation - The note that RAB left gives insite into his 
motivations. The note basically said "I'll probably be dead when you 
find this, but I just wanted you to know it was me". This is not 
a 'you killed my paw and I want revenge' kind of note. Whoever left 
it wanted to show up the greatest of all wizards and didn't care 
about retribution. This also lets us know that whoever RAB is, they 
probably have no family (that they care about anyway) because it is 
well known that if Voldemort cannot get his revenge on you, he will 
strike at those closest to you. 

Filch is a squib which is why he hates all of the students at 
Hogwarts. Every year he has to watch them come and go becoming great 
wizards while he is stuck cleaning up their mess. Wouldn't it be 
vindicating for Filch to take out the greatest of them all just to 
prove to all of the wizarding brats that he could, even though he 
couldn't cast a single spell.

Also consider that most people assume the 'I'll probably be dead 
when you find this...' portion of the note to mean that they 
expected Voldemort to come after them. It could have as easily meant 
that RAB expected to die of old age or sickness before Voldemort 
even found out about the switch.

4) Character development and names - As I stated before, Argus means 
200 eyes. Furthermore, Filch means thief. My question is: why would 
an author who is extremely careful with her characters names (ie Tom 
Malvoro Riddle) have a character running around with a name that 
means thief, yet never show a single instance when he has stolen. We 
know that Filch comes from a wizarding family, but we don't know 
which one. There is no mention of a Filch wizarding family. My guess 
is that Filch changed his name to avoid the embarrasment of people 
assuming he was a wizard by his family name. 

Of all the regular characters, we know the least about Filch. He has 
lurked in the shadows of Hogwarts for six books when every other 
regular has had their moment in the spotlight. Why would Rowling 
introduce a new character in her last book when she hasn't fully 
dived into the darkness of Filch. 


Well, that's pretty much it. It's my theory and I'm sticking to it. 
I hope you enjoy and comment.


Justin









From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 04:54:56 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkpa1l+r8r0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051108045456.70874.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142644

--- Justin 

> No doubt, the current consensus is that RAB is
> Regulus Black. 
> Personally, I think that is total nonsense for a
> number of reasons. 

...edited...

Sorry to disappoint you Justin but RAB is Regulus. It
is now canon. You should check out The Lexicon
(www.hp-lexicon.org). From a reliable source they got
confirmation that RAB is Regulus. Steve (editor/owner)
doesn't publish anything unless it's canon.

Juli
Aol: jlnbtr
Yahoo: jlnbtr





	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From kjones at telus.net  Tue Nov  8 05:03:33 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:33 -0800
Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_CHAPDISC3=3A_HB?=
 =?windows-1252?Q?P_3=2C_WILL_AND_WON=92T_?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
References: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437031A5.8060608@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142645


> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 3, Will and Won't.
snip

> Q1:  Does this signal a change in attitude toward Harry?  Is this a
> grassroots change or a campaign started by the Ministry?

   KJ writes:
      I'm thinking that the whole article points out which individuals 
were at the MoM, and by calling Harry "The Chosen One", I am wondering 
if the campaign isn't about trying to lure Voldemort into attacking 
Harry. This would certainly cause a rift between S. and DD.
> 
> Q2:  How does knowing that Scrimgeour was the Head Auror change your
> interpretation of earlier events as they had unfolded in OotP?

KJ writes:
    Since we already have two aurors in the OotP, I find that if 
Scrimgeour was really involved with defeating Voldemort, he also would 
be a member of the Order. Since he is not, that would indicate to me 
that DD does not trust him.

> Q5:  Do these measures seem reasonable?

KJ:
   Dumbledore, and Molly both had something to say about how anyone 
could find out about the answers to the questions asked for security. 
Also, most of the people murdered by the DE were actually in their own 
homes at the time. It doesn't seem to do much to cause a feeling of 
security.

> Q8:  What do you think of Dumbledore's behavior here?

KJ:
   Dumbledore appears to be a man pressed for time. He slides over the 
social niceties. He is taking the gloves off now. He is not so much 
polite and courteous as instructing the Dursleyson how to behave. He is 
mildly threatening and I am sure means to be so.
> 
> Q9:  Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12
> Grimmauld Place?  Why not move someplace friendlier?  Do they
> secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black?  <g>  Is it because Phineas's
> portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?

KJ:
   I think that they might move back into it. It has every security 
spell and ward on it that the Blacks could find, invent, or copy. If 
someone else serves as secret keeper, it could well be useable and more 
private than Hogwarts. I also think that at least one of the horcruxes 
are there.
> 
> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house? 
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of
> the house?

KJ:
  I think that only the horcrux will draw him. He sees the house only 
through Sirius' eyes.
> 
> Q11:  Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something more
> significant?

  KJ:
   Harry has been holding his living Godfather over Vernon's head for 
some time. I think that he was relieved that Sirius was gone. Harry had, 
of course, failed to mention it. I don't think that Vernon has clued in 
that Harry will be able to use magic freely once he gains his majority.
> 
> Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the
> Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's
> orders to Kreacher still apply?

KJ:
   I think that Sirius no longer has a hold on Kreacher. I also think 
that Kreacher is too old and senile to be actively involved in any plot. 
The security on the house may not hold for long, but I don't think we 
will see Kreacher involved in a plot. Harry did think to tell him not to 
talk to Draco.
> 
> Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At
> this point, why say it at all? 

KJ:
   He knows that he won't be around to dicuss it at a much later date. 
He is ensuring that things proceed according to plan after he is gone.
> 
> Q14:  Will there be consequences for either Harry or Dudley in
> Dumbledore's having done this? 

KJ:
   If DD has made it clear that the protections end when Harry can no 
longer call the house his home, they may make him quite welcome. They 
may want to get Dudley out of the house to protect him.
> 
> Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of age"
> that would cause the protection to end? 

KJ:
   As a man and no longer a child, his mother's protection will be 
finished. She was protecting her child. At seventeen, magically, he will 
be a child no longer.
> 
> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

KJ:
    She probably has clued in that Harry will be able to practice magic 
at home when he comes of age. She would have seen it before. As 
everything revolves around Dudley, she forgot that Harry would reach his 
majority earlier. Perhaps that was another area of discord between Lily 
and Petunia.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 05:05:15 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:05:15 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T,_continued?=
In-Reply-To: <dkmqpn+njqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkpbmb+4nd2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142646

This is a continuation of my previous post, which was getting a bit long.
> 
> Q9:  Do you believe that the Order will ever move back to 12 
> Grimmauld Place?  Why not move someplace friendlier?  Do they 
> secretly enjoy irritating Mrs. Black?  <g>  Is it because Phineas's 
> portrait, or something else that is significant, is in the house?

Carol:
I hadn't thought about Phineas's portrait, which could continue to
serve Dumbledore as well as (or instead of) the current headmaster or
headmistress. (Since I assume that McGonagall will assume the
position, I don't foresee conflicting loyalties for Phineas though
that would be a great plot device if JKR weren't limited by the need
to squeeze so much into a single book already.) I think the place will
be a bit less forbidding with Kreacher gone, and maybe Mrs Black will
stop screaming now that her renegade "blood traitor" son is dead. At
any rate, friendliness is much less important than safety, and the
house is presumably still protected by the Fidelius Charm even with DD
dead. And of course, it belongs to Harry, which is also convenient, so
I think they'll continue to use it. On a side note, I wish that Black
had given the house to Lupin, who needs it, rather than to Harry, who
doesn't. Maybe Harry will end up giving it to Lupin as a wedding gift
if he, Harry, and Tonks all survive to Book 8. Erm, I mean the
Epilogue of Book 7.
> 
> Q10:  Do you think *anything* will bring Harry back to the house?  
> Do you think pleasant memories could ever change the atmosphere of 
> the house?

Carol:
Pleasant memories? Another Christmas, with a toast to Sirius
(actually, that would work better at New Years, Auld Lang Syne). I
don't think he'll ever associate it with pleasant memories. But
necessity, and RAB, will bring Harry back to 12 GP in Book 7. I'm
betting on it.
> 
> Q11:  Is this [apparently greedy interest on hearing that Harry's
grandfather is dead and Harry has inherited a house] just Vernon's
normal reaction, or is it something more 
> significant?

Carol responds:
Almost everyone has commented on Vernon's greed here, so I'll mention
something else: Aarry had been using his "murderer" godfather's
existence as an implied threat to the Dursleys since the end of
PoA--hurt me or neglect me and I'll write to my godfather. So Harry
had conveniently "forgotten" to inform the Dursleys that Black was
dead (not to mention that he hadn't felt like talking about it). So I
was rather surprised at Vernon's reaction. I thought he would be angry
with Harry for deceiving him (concealing his godfather's death). (BTW,
I don't think that DD "conjures" Kreacher. I think he summons him
using a silent Accio--although it's not clear how he has the authority
to do so as he's not Kreacher's master. But I don't think a wizard can
*conjure* a living being which has its own existence.)
> 

> Q12:  Harry does not give Kreacher any orders about discussing the 
> Order.  Was this an error by Harry and Dumbledore?  Or do Sirius's 
> orders to Kreacher still apply?

Carol responds:
I think that Kreacher is still bound not to reveal any secrets that
Sirius ordered him to reveal, and of course the Fidelius Charm applies
to house-elves as well as to wizards or he'd have revealed the secret
to Narcissa earlier. So I don't think it's an error on the part of
either Harry or Dumbledore (who can't order Kreacher directly in any
case). Also, I doubt that they wanted to discuss the Order in front of
the Dursleys. The order I think Harry should have given is "Take a
bath and wear one of the Hogwarts tea towels." :-)
> 
> When Harry is ready to leave, Dumbledore turns to the Dursleys and 
> speaks to them directly for the first time since entering the house 
> (not counting the issue with the glasses of mead).  He [Q13, Q14]

> 
> Q13: Why does Dumbledore say this [chastise the Dursleys  
for their cruelty and neglect of Harry, and comment on "the appalling
damage" done to Dudley] now?  Why not 5 years ago?  At this point, why
say it at all?

Carol responds:
As others have noted, it doesn't affect the Dursleys much but it does
give Harry some satisfaction. IMO, it wasn't necessary to the plot and
was simply added to placate viewers who felt that Harry was a victim
of abuse and that Dumbledore was at fault for placing him with them.
(I happen not to blame Dumbledore for doing what he had to do, and I
think that being with the Dursleys gave Harry strengths that he would
never have acquired as a "pampered little prince" in a wizard
household. I'm very glad that Harry didn't come to Hogwarts aware of
his celebrity status, ready to develop into a second James.) So for
me, DD's words to the Dursleys were just a little loose plot end
tidied up. (Please don't call me heartless. This is a work of fiction
we're taling about, and the Dursleys have never been realistic
characters.)

> Q14:  Will there be consequences for either Harry or Dudley in 
> Dumbledore's having done this? 
> and
> Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of age" 
> that would cause the protection to end?

Carol responds:
For Dudley, certainly not. The Dursleys can't comprehend that their
"love" (indulgence) has shaped Dudley into a bully with no virtues and
no talents except boxing. I can't see much hope of a transformation
for Dudders, and his parents could hardly change their child-rearing
methods when he's sixteen even if they wanted to. As for Harry, he's
endured them for fifteen years (sixteen at the beginning of Book 7).
He'll only have a month with them and then--well, we'll see what
happens when the magical protection ends, but I don't think it will be
Petunia who performs magic. (Mrs Figg!) I think that DD designed the
protection of mother love protecting a child through her "blood" to
end when Harry became a "man" by WW standards. It has to be his own
responsibility to take care of himself, and it's really unfair to
further endanger the Dursleys by his presence if he's fully qualified,
or close to it. (A shame that he probably won't have that extra year
at Hogwarts.) Anyway, whatever small consequences may come of DD's
having scolded the Dursleys for neglecting Harry will be nothing
compared with what LV plans for him when the protection ends at 12:01
August 1.
  
> 
> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

Carol responds:
Petunia has always known things about the WW that she hasn't told
Vernon. Twice words have burst out of her (in SS/PS with Hagrid and in
OoP after the Dementor incident) that indicate she's been suppressing
both feelings and information for a long time. I think that maybe she
feels a bit of guilt or resentment or both. She has a blood connection
with Harry that Vernon doesn't share and she knows things that he
ought to know. I think all that will come out in Book 7. (But I don't
think she'll perform magic. JKR has been telling us for six books that
she's a Muggle and I believe it. Besides, she wouldn't know a spell
from a computer program in Fortran. Mrs. Figg would, which is why
she's my candidate for the person who'll perform magic in desperate
circumstances late in life. Besides Petunia is only about forty, which
is not "late in life.")
> 
> Q17: Do you think Harry will be allowed to return to Privet Drive?

Carol responds:
Absolutely. We have to have that segment of the story! Besides, even
if Vernon opposes it, Petunia will persuade him, as she did after the
Howler.
> 
> And to repeat the Potioncat's question from Chapter 2: Ch2-Q10.
Here's a question to think about when we move into chapter 3: "The
Other Minister" begins with a Muggle receiving two visitors.  It's an
informative, yet humorous chapter. The dreary "Spinners End" begins
with two visitors coming to a very different Muggle location. "Will
and Won't" begins with someone waiting for a visitor and returns us to
a more humorous mood. How do these three chapters work together?

Carol responds:
As has already been noted, not just the first three but the first four
chapters seem to take place at approximately the same time on the same
night (and involve unexpected visitors in a different Muggle
location). Chapter 1 begins at just before midnight on what appears to
be a Friday night (both the Muggle PM and Fudge talk about the week
they've been having). Chapter 2 seems to follow immediately afterward,
as the fog shifts from London to the industrial north. I'd say it
can't be much past 1:00 as the action (as opposed to the flashbacks)
in chapter 1 can't take much time. It might even be earlier, say
around 12:30 when Narcissa and Bellatrix Apparate into the vicinity of
Spinner's End. Chapter 3 backtracks and we have a sleeping Harry
waiting for 11:00 on what is definitely a Friday night. The clock
strikes midnight in the next chapter and there's enough talk and
action to make the events at Slughorn's occur at roughly the same time
as "Spinner's End," or only slightly before, so that Slughorn's
acceptance of the Potions appointment occurs while Snape is talking
with the Black sisters--making him officially the DADA teacher and
subject to the DADA curse just in time for Narcissa to propose the UV.

At any rate, "Will and Won't" re-establishes the usual Harry
perspective of the books, but not immediately; the first part of the
chapter continues the objective narrator of "Spinner's End," who
describes Harry's room and its contents while Harry is asleep. We're
brought up to date on events through the mechanism of Daily Prophet
articles, an MoM pamphlet, and a hand-written note, along with a
description of Harry's rather odd possessions, among them an owl, a
set of spell books, and a cauldron. (Odd that he packed the cauldron
if he didn't think he was going to take NEWT Potions. Maybe just in
case?) Later the chapter answers readers' questions through Dumbledore
informing Harry of events concerning Sirius Black and Kreacher through
the entertaining (for the reader) contact between the WW and Muggle
worlds (a device also used in "The Other Minister"). Like chapter 1,
chapter 3 is primarily humorous and informative, but it also touches
on some sinister or serious elements: Bellatrix Lestrange, Sirius
Black's will and death, Kreacher, the Dursleys' treatment of Harry,
the end of the magical protection, Dumbledore's blackened hand, and
DD's taste for Madam Rosmerta's mead. Quite a feat for a seemingly
innocent chapter. And a much better method of updating the reader than
the tiresome "Harry Potter was a very unusual boy" exposition of CoS
and PoA. 

Carol, breathing a sigh of relief that she made it to the end and
hoping that one or two readers are still with her

 








From lealess at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 05:10:54 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:10:54 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp4jf+dt6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkpc0u+n0u3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142647

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at h...> wrote:
>
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > What custom did Dumbledore follow? He came uninvited and took the 
> > position of his host; I'd like you to direct me to any book or
> > site where such behaviour would be described as customary or as an 
> > example of good manners. Of course, it may be that wizards 
> > customary deal with muggles in that fashion. After all we saw 
> > Scrimgeour doing just that in the Prime Minister's office. 
> > 
> ><snip>
> > You know, when I'm at home *I* am the one who does the offerings, 
> > be it a place to seat, a refreshment, or a conversational gambit. 
> > To seat before it's suggested by your host IS rude. To offer a 
> > drink to your host IS rude. To demand any such thing even in the 
> > "shell we assume" form IS rude. Because ALL THIS IS A PREROGATIVE  
> > OF YOUR HOST. And if I don't want to see a visitor, to entertain 
> > them and to let them in *my* house I am within my rights to simply 
> > refuse to do any such thing. It is not polite to trespass on my 
> > (in fact it's a criminal offence), impose on my privacy and  
> > property practically giveorders in my own place all the while 
> > preaching  manners.
> 
> Valky now:
> :) 
> 
> Dumbledores behaviour that night would not strictly be bullying 
> under the rules of etiquette in civil custom of 'proper' people like 
> the Durselys. It's called, rather, pressing one's advantage, 
> something that Dumbledore, as an official acquaintance of the 
> Dursleys, could always do, and yet, has refrained brilliantly from 
> doing in more than a decade of knowing them.

lealess:  It seems a fine distinction between "pressing an advantage"
and bullying when the one doing the pressing is arguably a superior
creature, at least in power.  What choice does the inferior have,
except to submit?

> The fact is the Dursleys bully like they do, because the customs 
> allow them to 'press advantage' and remain civilised people under 
> their social rules. It is not Dumbledore who is at fault, but the 
> rules themselves. They allow for it, and the Durselys were cornered 
> within their own standard of good behaviour.

lealess: Yes, the Dursleys are bullies.  However, the Dursleys were
cornered by someone they feared, not by their own standards, which
they applied hypocritically, anyway.  I would not call them civilized.

> A few points:
> 
> Dumbledore was not trespassing, he sent a forwarding announcement of
> his intent to come. This is why Vernon could not say "You are
> trespassing, get off my land." because according to *his* own
> standards and customs Dumbledore was there on a good faith
> misunderstanding. 

lealess: Dumbledore realizes that Harry did not tell the Dursleys that
he was coming that evening.  Then he steps over the threshhold without
being invited in.  You are saying that him sending a note to Harry
beforehand makes that OK?  So supposedly any correspondent could
invite him- or herself over, if the person sent a note beforehand, and
the Dursleys would have to accept it according to a code they probably
don't hold to anyway?
 
> Dumbledore had maintained the acquaintance between himself in the
> Dursleys in proper fashion through regular correspondence. By the
> rules of the custom Dumbledore's eventual visit is expected *of
> Dumbledore*. It would be more rude *not* to turn up someday for a
> visit. Dumbledore has done the right thing by visiting, and Vernon
> knows it. 

lealess: The only example of correspondence with Dumbledore we have is
a Howler.  If someone sends me what I see as a threatening letter,
and then decides to drop by, I might not think that person was doing
the proper thing.  I might want them to stay away.

I am snipping the rest of your post, because I am not convinced the
Dursleys hold to the code of manners you describe.  Vernon seems like
a "king of the castle" type, except when its work-related, and then
he's a toady.

I agree that the Dursleys are bullies.  Did Dumbledore change that
during his visit?  No.  All he did was frighten them and get his petty
digs in.  Did he change years of abuse?  Did he even explain how they
abused Dudley?  No.  All he did was give a vicarious thrill to readers
eager for the Dursleys to be punished.

The Dursleys, or at least Petunia, were frightened of involvement with
wizards, for good reason (Lily and James), and Petunia's fear made the
family violently reactive to any hint of magic.  I'm not excusing the
Dursleys at all.  But they are understandable.  Look at the numbers of
people who turn their backs on neighbors in distress because they
don't want to be exposed to risk.  For that matter, look at the
parents who sell their children into slavery today.  It isn't
uncommon, unfortunately.  So, the Dursleys are selfish hypocrites. 
But they are not the worst thing that could have happened to Harry in
the Muggle world.

Let's examine Dumbledore's behavior.  He realizes Harry didn't tell
the Dursleys he'd be around, yet steps into the house as if it was all
fixed.  He interrupts Vernon with mild scolding right away.  He
abruptly slings the family onto a sofa.  He chides them for not
offering him drinks, as if they invited him there in the first place.
 He offers them a magical drink, which Harry imbibes, but... Harry is
a wizard and they are wary of magic (and have you ever had mead --
yuck).  He forces glasses of this liquor on them, without even asking
if they want it.  Then he calls his little, hyperactive friend over
(Kreacher), without a by your leave.  Finally, he tells them the
protection they have had for fifteen years will end in a year, oh, but
would they shelter the one exposing them to danger for another year,
anyway?  Way to go, Dumbledore; you really made a stride forward for
wizard-Muggle understanding.

If you are saying that Dumbledore wasn't rude, or arrogant, or just
plain creepy, I don't buy it.  If you are saying he was out for some
sort of weird but pointless revenge, that seems more likely.

If the Dumbledore of HBP was the same one we've known all along, then
he was a surprise to me.  If there was something wrong with him, some
dark magic working within him, some pressing deadline he was facing,
some means by which he was exhausting himself, then his behavior would
make a lot more sense.

He had his little joke with the glasses, and some readers got the joy
of seeing the Dursleys bullied, i.e., terrified by one of superior
power to satisfy the psychological needs of the superior one.  But if
Dumbledore was in my house, I would have considered him rude, told him
I really wasn't expecting him, and asked him to leave.  This
Dumbledore would come in anyway and lectured or laughed at me, after
throwing me on a sofa and forcing a drink on me.  He was not a polite
man.

As for Harry's nervousness, I think that was a combination of his
realization that Dumbledore enjoyed toying with the Dursleys, combined
with his usual eagerness to leave that house.

lealess






From Nanagose at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 05:32:11 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:32:11 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp4lf+q5bu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkpd8r+v5lg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142648

> Alla:
> 
> I suspect that I will be arguing semantics again, but here is what I 
> think. I DO believe that Dumbledore was being polite. But the 
> meaning of word "polite" I am using is to " use kind words", no more 
> than that.
> 
> I do NOT think that Dumbledore was being RESPECTFUL to Dursleys, in 
> that I suspect I agree with a_svirn. Am I making sense? He was being 
> polite as in "using formalities", but definitely not respecting them 
> as people.

Christina:

He says polite words, but there's a definite edge.  He doesn't use a
sarcastic tone, but that seems to be his intent.  He might do some
polite *things*, but he doesn't mean them in a polite way.  And plenty
of what he does is not at all polite, IMO, including offering the
Dursleys drinks (particularly since he uses magic to do so).

> Alla:
> I don't know whether JKR wrote this scene because Harry needed to 
> hear it or some readers did ( myself definitely included), but I am 
> absolutely happy that she did.

Christina:

JKR does seem to like writing in cathartic moments; I think there's
one in every book pertaining to Draco Malfoy.

> a_svirn:
>
> Well, it was Dumbledore who left him to their tender mercies in
> the first place. They certainly didn't ask for the job.
>
>Alla:
>
>True, true of course Dumbledore left Harry there and if Petunia was
>not Lily's sister, I would completely agree with you. No matter how
>much I hate the characters of Dursleys, they did NOT ask for the job
>of caring for Harry. BUT to me and to me only the fact that Petunia
>IS Lily's sister changes everything.

Christina:

Well, we know that it does, because Harry being in the Dursley's care
was the only way to seal the blood charm on Harry and protect him from
Voldemort.  However, I think that it's worth mentioning that the
Dursleys have definitely assumed an increased risk since they took
Harry in.  Not only didn't the Dursleys ask for the job, but they have
been placed in harm's way because of it (ie, Dudley and the Dementors).

> a_svirn:
> Besides, what it 
> > has to say to anything? They may be as bad as they come, but 
> > Dumbledore behaviour would still be a "glorious" bit of bullying.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> To me this scene was another example of "poetic justice" or " 
> vicarious retribution".

Christina:

I agree with a_svirn.  This is bullying; I get the same vibe from
reading the Dumbledore/Dursley interaction as I do when I read
"Snape's Worst Memory" or almost anything involving Malfoy.  

> > a_svirn:
> > What do you mean "for a change"? We have seen wizards being rude 
> to 
> > them on Harry's behalf from the book 1.
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Could you refresh my recollection, please? Do you mean those who 
> came to Vernon on the street to congratulate him in PS/SS?
> If yes, I don't see it as rudeness, but more like desire to share 
> the overwhelming happiness with anybody, even with Vernon. 

Christina:

I don't think that wizards have necessarily been *rude* to the
Dursleys, per se, but I do want to discuss the situation in light of a
topic we've talked a lot about in the past, which is Snape's relative
"bad-ness" of his actions due to the fact that he "preys" on those
that are considered weaker than he is (ie, children).  I know a lot of
people consider Snape's primary character flaw his tendency to prey on
those weaker than himself (although I believe he learned that from
James and Sirius, but that's another thread), and I've definitely
spoken to people who have said that it is this behavior that prevents
them from thinking that Snape can ever come to any good.  I'd really
like to hear from people in this camp regarding the Dumbledore/Dursley
scene.  

I bring this up here because, while I don't think many wizards have
been outright rude to the Dursleys, there are many cases of the
Dursleys being victimized by wizards.  Hagrid gives Dudley a magical
tail.  Harry delights in freaking out the Dursleys at the end of PoA
by telling them that his murdering godfather has broken out of prison
and will be keeping an eye on him.  Mad-Eye Moody scares Vernon half
to death with his magical eye.  Fred and George do the same by
enlarging Dudley's tongue.  I know that they say in the book that they
didn't target Dudley *because* he was a Muggle, but that doesn't
change the fact that the act is more cruel because he *is* a Muggle. 
Compare this to the Snape situation- Snape doesn't target Harry
because he is a child (he is mean to adults, too), but his behavior
towards Harry is still worse than his behavior towards, say, Sirius,
because Harry is a child, and he is weaker than Snape (who is an
authority figure).

My point is, the fact that the Dursleys are Muggles and don't
understand magic is constantly exploited by wizards.  This is what
bothers me most about the Dumbledore/Dursley meeting.  As much as we
cry foul when Position-of-Authority!Snape picks on Child!Harry, people
seem shockingly approving when Dumbledore does the exact same thing to
the Dursleys.  He is clearly is a position of power, and he uses that
to his advantage.  Yes, the Dursleys are bad people who have been very
mean to Harry, but think about things from their point of view.  They
are constantly being intimidated by people from a world they are not a
part of who have weapons that they don't understand.  They have no
means of protecting themselves against the use of magic, and the
wizarding world seems open to exploiting this, Dumbledore included. 
His actions at the Dursleys' house, particularly the fact that he uses
magic, are basically a big huge sign saying, "I am in control of this
situation."  Which, to go back to the original question, is the
epitome of rude when you are in the home of another person.


Christina







From Nanagose at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 05:43:37 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:43:37 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <20051108045456.70874.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dkpdu9+ujo1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142649

Juli:
> Sorry to disappoint you Justin but RAB is Regulus. It
> is now canon. You should check out The Lexicon
> (www.hp-lexicon.org). From a reliable source they got
> confirmation that RAB is Regulus. Steve (editor/owner)
> doesn't publish anything unless it's canon.

Christina:

First of all, in the strictest definition, canon is what is in the
books, period.  Get a little looser, and you can include what JKR has
said in interviews.  The announcement that RAB was Regulus Black that
did appear on the hp-lexicon has since been taken down.  Now it just
says under Regulus's profile that "many fans suspect he might be the
mysterious RAB."

I, for one, am utterly convinced that RAB *is* Regulus Black, but
until it comes out of JKR's mouth (or pen), it is NOT canon.  I
personally think that speculation on the identity of RAB is a bit
useless, considering the fact that I think we'll be able to tell who
it is from the various translations that are coming out, but until we
get something from the actual books, "Who is RAB?" is a completely
valid line of questioning.  The only reliable source in JKR herself. 
Until you can quote the canon, it doesn't exist.


Christina






From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 06:05:44 2005
From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 01:05:44 EST
Subject: TBAY FILK: Rascal Flatts' Bless The Broken Road
Message-ID: <261.7523d5.30a19a38@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142650

TortieKitten was sitting on the deck of the SWAK DEAD, visiting her sister,  
First Mate Kaylee Tonks-Lupin and re-reading GoF (since she'd reread  HBP 
fourteen times already). "Hey, Kaylee! Look at this!" 
"What, Tortie?" 
"The Graveyard Scene! It gives me an awesome idea for a FILK!" Kaylee  
grinned. 
"Really? Tell me!" TortieKitten grinned evilly. "Yeah. I have to  change a 
bit, though." "It's okay, little sis," Kaylee said comfortingly,  patting her 
sister's shoulder.
 
*Kaylee and Tortie imagine Graveyard Scene. VOLDEMORT, newly risen,  
surrounded by his DEATH EATERS in a chorus.*
 
VOLDEMORT: I set out on a narrow way many years  ago
Searching for immortal life along the broken road
But I got lost  a time or two
Wiped my brow and kept pushing through
I couldn't see how every sign pointed straight to  you
 
(offstage)
 
CROUCH!MOODY/BELLATRIX LESTRANGE: 
Every long lost dream led me to where you are
Others who  broke my heart they were like northern stars
Pointing me on my way into  your loving arms
This much I know is true
That God blessed the broken  road
That led me straight to you
 
VOLDEMORT: I think about the years I spent just passing through
AVERY:  I'd like to have the time I lost and give it back to you
PETTIGREW: But you  just smiled and took my hand
VOLDEMORT: You've been there you  understand
LUCIUS: It's all part of a grander plan that is coming  true

(Harry and Voldemort duel. Prior Incantatem effect, golden web and all  that, 
shadows of Voldemort's victims: BRYCE, JAMES, LILY, CEDRIC. HARRY gazes at  
his parents, sings while the others buy time for him)

HARRY: Every long lost dream led me to where you are
Others who  broke my heart they were like northern stars
Pointing me on my way into your  loving arms
This much I know is true
That God blessed the broken  road
That led me straight to you

(fade back to TBAY)
 
TortieKitten glances at her sister, Juli, and Captain Amber's dumbstruck  
looks. "What?" "Well, this gets us away from Half-Blood Prince theories..."  
Captain Amber mutters, clearly in need of a Diet Pepsi with Jack Daniels, and  
Juli dashes off to fix it as Kaylee shakes her head, clearly amused. "Tortie,  
you are too much." "Of course I am, I'm your sister." 
 
~Kaylee, posting this for TortieKitten. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 06:23:02 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:23:02 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
In-Reply-To: <dkgkjo+r7dg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkpg86+nsu5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142651


> > >>Krista (wondering what music Jogging!Snape has on his iPod)


Okay, I swear this nearly over.. ;)  So, I've grilled the boyfriend 
on the subject of Snape's musical tastes, seeing as he's someone who 
not only grew up in a crap town in England in the seventies, but 
actually played in a crap band.  He was suspiciously quick off the 
mark with an answer for someone who claims to have only read the 
books once, but that aside...

The gist:  the Clash and punk would be way too cool for Snape- 
that's more what Sirius would have listened to.  Snape would would 
be the one one for whiny, intellectual, rock-snob prog rock.  He 
recommends the Alan Parsons Project "I Robot", and you can actually 
listen to "Court of the Crimson King" here: 
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?
cd_id=1911 which I confess does sound like a angry, self-pitying 
Snape, with a "I'm so sensitive no one understands me" 
undercurrent.  I'm readier than some to embrace lame!Snape so, yup.  

I asked about Pink Floyd, and he said he didn't mention it because 
it was, I quote, "so obvious".  He would also like to add, "Hello?  
Black Sabbath?"

Vengeance on Sirius for lameness though:  Alan Parsons Project 
actually wrote an unbelievably lame song called "Sirius" (listen 
here:  
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?
cd_id=1091 ) which features the lyrics  "Don't think sorry's easily 
said /Don't try turning tables instead /You've taken lots of chances 
before..."

Oh, he did say there was no way anybody living anywhere in England 
in the 70's could avoid having rock inflicted on them, would they or 
no.  He seemed amazed there were any two opinions on the subject. :)

If anybody thinks this is terribly off topic, I would like to lay a 
bet that JKR could instantly supply a list of bands for all her 70's 
generation characters, whether she actually thought they listened to 
them or not.

-- Sydney, who must see "Spinal Tap" again...






From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 06:31:33 2005
From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 01:31:33 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC 3: HPB 3, WILL AND WON'T (long)
Message-ID: <23a.a7478d.30a1a045@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142652


Kaylee replies to Jen's post: 
 
Jen: (Waves a 'thanks!' to Ravenclaw Bookworm, wonders vaguely whether  
SSSusan and Petra left a few brownies....)
 
Kaylee: (rather hopes the First Mate on the DRIBBLE SHADOWS is willing  to 
share a few brownies with her shipmate if there ARE any  left...)

<snip Q15, as Jen adequately answered it and I have nothing  to add>

> Q16: Why was Petunia "oddly flushed"?

Jen: My first thought  about the flushing was Petunia felt embarassed-
-that's what causes me to  flush! But I don't know if Petunia is 
capable of feeling that about Harry.  Fear for her family would be 
more in keeping with what we know about her  character. 

Kaylee: Hmm. Embarrassment, yes, and fear...yes, I agree...at the risk of  
this being a "me too" post, I hope I find other things to say!

Jen: Dumbledore's reminder that Harry's protection will end soon, and  his 
request for Harry to return one last time, brought about the odd  
flushing. How would that particular set of events affect *Petunia*?  
Shouldn't she be glad to be done with it all? 

Kaylee: Ah! Yes, that'd be good enough to make her flush. You know, I  
wonder...wasn't there a time JKR said Harry hasn't performed magic on Dudley  "yet"? 
I'm still supporting Petunia as the "magic-late-in-life" person!  <g> Maybe 
she's embarrassed that she forgot the WW kids came of age at 17,  since Lily 
must have too. Come to think of it, do we know YET which one was  older? 
<puzzled> Anyone have canon on that?

Jen: Then I remembered the point JKR made that Petunia and Dumbledore  had 
private correspondence prior to the letter left on the doorstep.  
Dumbledore may have been warning her that Voldemort was targeting 
the  Potters, and had somehow learned about Petunia along the way. My 
guess is  this was one piece of information passed by Pettigrew which 
found its way  back to Dumbledore, and caused him to suspect a spy 
close to the Potters.  

Kaylee: Okay, totally OT for this thread, but I was remembering something  
about a "Peter-gets-the-girl" theory on Hypothetic Alley, and I was wondering if 
 the girl he (almost) got was *Petunia*. Perhaps *he* was "that awful boy" 
that  Petunia was discussing? MWPP may have come to the Evans home in Lily's 
seventh  year over a break or something and Peter could have met Petunia, he 
might have  loved her but then he found out about Petunia loving Vernon (ew...) 
and in  revenge, staged a loud conversation with Lily about Dementors and how 
they were  dangerous to Muggles (to frighten Petunia and Vernon). Am I way off 
base? Oh  well. Pass me a SYCOPHANTS badge, someone? I'm in the mood for one 
right now. I  think Pettigrew will be redeemed, although he's no doubt vengeful 
and angry  enough to cast the AK...okay, I'm getting WAY OT. <squeak> Sorry, 
List  Elves! (and anyone else...)

Jen: To conclude (and this isn't a new idea), I think the blood  
protection goes both ways and protects Petunia and Dudley as well as  
Harry--notice how Petunia snaps to and mistakenly corrects 
Dumbledore  that Harry will be an adult at 18 instead of 17? I think 
she's already been  considering what they will do when Harry leaves, 
and is alarmed to hear the  separation will come a year sooner, and 
likely before Voldemort is  dead.

Kaylee: I think so too. You know, I'm willing to bet that Vernon,  who 
probably ISN'T protected by a darn thing, will be dead before Book 7 gets  any real 
start. Petunia will freak, Dudley will go ballistic, and Harry will  pity his 
half-orphaned cousin that now knows (halfway) how Harry feels. Aww,  poor 
Dudders. He needs a hug. Not. *snort* Well, we'll see. I think the death of  
Vernon would be a big enough event to bring the late-in-life magic out of  
whichever Dursley it is (although I'm betting on Petunia, since I barely  remember JKR 
saying with Dudley "what you see is what you get"...)
 
Kaylee, replying to Jen's post and saluting the First Mate of the DRIBBLE  
SHADOWS, reminding her that Amber's invited the entire crew over for  
Thanksgiving
Jen
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  8 06:35:59 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:35:59 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkpc0u+n0u3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkph0f+o9k1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142653



> > 
> > Valky now:
> > :) 
> > 
> > Dumbledores behaviour that night would not strictly be bullying 
> > under the rules of etiquette in civil custom of 'proper' people 
> > like the Durselys. It's called, rather, pressing one's advantage, 

> lealess:  It seems a fine distinction between "pressing an 
> advantage" and bullying when the one doing the pressing is arguably 
> a superior creature, at least in power.  What choice does the 
> inferior have, except to submit?

Valky responds:
The distinction is there though, because DD does not come brandishing
a wand and making threats, he extends the Dursleys diplomatic
gestures, niceties and civilised custom. What could you expect of
Dumbledore, honestly, more than that? The fate of the world (both
Wizard and Muggle) rests on the diplomatic relationship Dumbledore
keeps between his fight for good, and these reluctant allies.
Dumbledore has spent 15 years awaiting their so called good graces,
enough is enough, there is business to attend to and Dumbledore
attends to it in an entirely civilised manner IMO. They got 15 good
years of the utmost forbearance and respect from Dumbledore it counts!
I reiterate, they are done in by their own intolerance. Dumbledore was
*supposed* to be an uncivilised unwashed crackpot, their own sense of
social right and wrong told them so. When he wasn't, when he extended
social graces of their own custom, they had no reply. It serves them
right. 
 
 
> lealess: Yes, the Dursleys are bullies.  However, the Dursleys were
> cornered by someone they feared, not by their own standards, which
> they applied hypocritically, anyway.  I would not call them 
> civilized.

Valky:
Vernon was threatening, angry, bursting with unpleasant retorts etc..
Oh, yes, he was terrified..
Petunia was shocked, but Dudley was the only frightened one there
(with fairly good reason unrelated to Dumbledore).
They did exchange frightened glances at each other after Dumbledore
conjured the mead out of thin air, but Vernon certainly found the
courage to shout "Get these ruddy things off us!" did he not?

I actually thought that it was fairly obvious Vernon *wasn't*
frightened of Dumbledore. He let Dumbledore press himself in the door
because Dumbledore's concern for everyone's safety was well founded,
in short, he was doing the right thing, what could Vernon say to that
that was not simply indecent of him? Dumbledore continued his good
faith approach even reminding Vernon of the golden rule- "If you
cannot say anything nice......" there is a pause where Dumbledore
*does* afford the Dursleys a respectful moment to make their excuses,
they do not, and time is wasting. Dumbledore is entitled to assume
that they are good people, it is, after all, what they want, right? 
Of course he is enjoying it, they are disgusted by their very own
sense of superiority because they are seeing it in him, in the
uncivilised.

:)
You can call them uncivilised, that is fine. But they do wish to be
known as civilised people, and that affords Dumbledore advantages in
their good graces. Good on him for using them when the occasion called
for it.



> > A few points:
> > 
> > Dumbledore was not trespassing, he sent a forwarding announcement 
> > of his intent to come. This is why Vernon could not say "You are
> > trespassing, get off my land." because according to *his* own
> > standards and customs Dumbledore was there on a good faith
> > misunderstanding. 
> 
> lealess: Dumbledore realizes that Harry did not tell the Dursleys 
> that he was coming that evening.  Then he steps over the threshhold 
> without being invited in.  You are saying that him sending a note to 
> Harry beforehand makes that OK?  So supposedly any correspondent 
> could invite him- or herself over, if the person sent a note 
> beforehand, and the Dursleys would have to accept it according to a 
> code they probably don't hold to anyway?

Valky:
That isn't even nearly what I said, lealess. They were afforded the
opportunity to refuse Dumbledores visit because he sent a note. Yes in
the traditions of ettiquette it is not essential that the visitor have
a reply for an informal occasion such as this. Dumbledore had every
right to assume that his visit would be recieved.
As a correspondent Dumbledore is obliged to make a customary visit
anyway, so regardless of the circumstances of this one visit, Petunia
was given more than enough time to refuse the visit over the past
fifteen years when she could have written a letter formally ending the
correspondence, and/or shunted Harry out of the home ending the
relationship. Otherwise, the Dursleys should expect that Dumbledore
will call upon them.
Finally I ask *you* now to explain *why it is GOOD manners* for them
to have refused Dumbledore entry after his efforts to maintain contact
with them, his respectful forbearance for 15 years and his journey to
call upon them that night, or as a_svirn suggested, to call a harmless
polite old man who has done the right thing in good faith a criminal
and a trespasser and scream him off your doorstep. It's easy to see
the reason they didn't was because they were minding their manners.

 
> lealess: The only example of correspondence with Dumbledore we have 
> is a Howler. If someone sends me what I see as a threatening letter,
> and then decides to drop by, I might not think that person was doing
> the proper thing.  I might want them to stay away.

Valky:
How do we know that this was a threatening letter? Is that not merely
a speculation? or do you really know what remember my last means?


> lealess:
> If you are saying that Dumbledore wasn't rude, or arrogant, or just
> plain creepy, I don't buy it.  If you are saying he was out for some
> sort of weird but pointless revenge, that seems more likely.
> <snip>  if Dumbledore was in my house, I would have considered him 
> rude, told him I really wasn't expecting him, and asked him to 
> leave.  

Valky:
In the midst of a World War? You would think it rude that he protects
you? Dumbledore gave the Dursleys a pause to make their excuses while
he stood at the doorway and they didn't. But supposing you did, what
would be your excuse in that moment. Dumbledore hadn't been rude.


Lesless:
> Dumbledore would come in anyway and lectured or laughed at me, after
> throwing me on a sofa and forcing a drink on me.  He was not a 
> polite man.

Valky:
Can I assume that there would come a time when a man like Dumbledore
would not forbear you? That you would be obtuse to the degree that
someone so kind as to try to save the soul of his would be murderer
would deem it necessary to press advantage on you? 

Please don't take that too seriously, I mean it only in a jesting
fashion. :)












From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 07:18:22 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:18:22 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Protection Lost at 17???
In-Reply-To: <dkp9h8+rkob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkpjfu+4ivg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142654

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:
>
> (Waves a 'thanks!' to Ravenclaw Bookworm, wonders vaguely whether 
> SSSusan and Petra left a few brownies....)
> 
> > Q15:  What is significant about Harry turning 17 or "coming of
> > age" that would cause the protection to end?  
> 
> Jen: JKR said in an interview* after HBP: "That protection won't 
> continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no 
> longer given that protective aura by his mother.." I thought it must 
> have been the charm Dumbledore performed & Petunia sealed which 
> would expire, but it sounds like something inherent to the ancient 
> magic of the sacrifice.
> 
> (*ITV interview, July 2005)
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Jen

bboyminn:

Lily's protection of Harry expires when Harry turns 17? That doesn't
sound right. I could see the protection Harry gains from Dumbledore's
charm that protects him while he calls the Dursley's home expiring,
that make perfect sense. But I can't see any logical reason why Lily's
sacrifice protection would every expire.

Keep in mind that we can't take JKR's statement in interview as
absolute canon, they are more canon-ish. Frequently she answers
spontaneously and therefore doesn't have time to think her answers
through.

I see what you have quoted, but in the context of the story it simply
doesn't make logical sense to me. People are always confusing and
intermixing Lily's Sacrifice Protection and the Dumbledore's
Protection by Lily's Blood at the Dursley's. Perhaps JKR in a moment
of haste has done the same.

Still don't believe it.

Steve/bboyminn







From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov  7 18:50:16 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:50:16 -0000
Subject: Managing Dead Sirius
In-Reply-To: <dknnrr+ebub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dko7l8+nchs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142655

I think the big reason Sirius never got a memorial service of any sort 
is that the attendees would all be Order members and friends of 
Harry's. In other words, people Voldemort wants dead NOW. If Snape's 
on Voldemort's side, he'd definitely tell Voldemort all the details 
needed to set up a little surprise at the service. If Snape's on 
Dumbledore's side, he'd probably tell anyway, for the fun of it (then 
tell Dumbledore about the planned attack, a heartbeat too late).


mercurybluesmng






From lawrence81 at iwon.com  Mon Nov  7 19:56:28 2005
From: lawrence81 at iwon.com (lawrence81 at iwon.com)
Date: Mon,  7 Nov 2005 14:56:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Snape's iPod - Gramophone's for the Young.
Message-ID: <20051107195628.32AC1124B7@email.iwon.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142656

Caius Marcius:

> Twice, Harry had gone to his office and knocked, but received no 
> reply, though on the second occasion he was sure he had heard the 
> quickly stifled sounds of an old gramophone.
>
> - HBP, Chap. 21




Perhaps it isn't really a gramophone, but a magical device that superficially resembles a gramophone and serves a similar function; just as the Hogwart's Express isn't really a steam train.

larryu81
_______________________________________________








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov  8 05:07:52 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:07:52 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp2qe+jqfg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkpbr8+nkl7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142657

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> 
> I do think think this shows that Dumbledore could not have bullied 
> the Dursleys into treating Harry better.  If he'd done something 
> similar when Harry was young, I think Harry would have been on a 
> street corner as soon as Dumbledore left Privet Drive and the 
> Dursleys would have had their bags packed and plane tickets for 
> parts unknown in their pockets.  Because the Dursleys *were* 
> terrified, and yet they still refused to drink the mead.
> 
> Betsy Hp
>

Hmmm.  I'm not at all sure it shows any such thing.  Dumbledore was 
engaging in what amounts to a parlor trick, and I'm not sure I would 
agree that the the Dursleys were terrified.  Frightened and 
uncomfortable, yes, but not terrified, and they were certainly 
nowhere near experiencing the level of pain and humiliation to which 
DD should have subjected them.  True threats would have been 
something else again (for instance letting Vernon spend a weekend as 
a turnip), and I suspect would have worked very well indeed.

Which, as I believe Alla has pointed out, is yet another reason that 
JKR seems to be backing away from the whole issue.  As is her bad 
habit, she really didn't think that whole situation through very 
thoroughly at all.  It wasn't until she had almost put her foot in it 
for good that she seemed to realize the mess she had gotten herself, 
and Dumbledore, into.


Lupinlore










From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov  8 05:49:05 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:49:05 -0500
Subject: What's in a Name? (CHAPDISC - Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <dkom9l+meiv@eGroups.com>
References: <dkom9l+meiv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43703C51.1040301@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142658

Goddlefrood wrote:
> There is some evidence to support it; why then did Snape 
> call Lily a mudblood? This is after all one of the worst insults in 
> the wizarding world. Even for a broken-hearted teenager it seems 
> rather extreme to throw this loathsome insult, that is assuming that 
> Snape already had some infatuation with Lily prior to the incident 
> experienced in the Pensieve.

Bart:
Snape had been humiliated by a spell that he, himself had invented, and 
was 15. And was treated as an object of pity by a girl who he may have 
already formed strong feelings.

	Bart







From lealess at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 09:02:10 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:02:10 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkph0f+o9k1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkppii+igdo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142659

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at h...> wrote:
> > lealess: Dumbledore realizes that Harry did not tell the Dursleys 
> > that he was coming that evening.  Then he steps over the 
> > threshhold without being invited in.  You are saying that him 
> > sending a note to Harry beforehand makes that OK?  So supposedly  
> > any correspondent could invite him- or herself over, if the person 
> > sent a note beforehand, and the Dursleys would have to accept it 
> > according to a code they probably don't hold to anyway?
> 
> Valky:
> That isn't even nearly what I said, lealess. They were afforded the
> opportunity to refuse Dumbledores visit because he sent a note. Yes 
> in the traditions of ettiquette it is not essential that the visitor 
> have a reply for an informal occasion such as this. Dumbledore had 
> every right to assume that his visit would be recieved.
> As a correspondent Dumbledore is obliged to make a customary visit
> anyway, so regardless of the circumstances of this one visit, 
> Petunia was given more than enough time to refuse the visit over the 
> past fifteen years when she could have written a letter formally 
> ending the correspondence, and/or shunted Harry out of the home 
> ending the relationship. Otherwise, the Dursleys should expect that 
> Dumbledore will call upon them.
> Finally I ask *you* now to explain *why it is GOOD manners* for them
> to have refused Dumbledore entry after his efforts to maintain 
> contact with them, his respectful forbearance for 15 years and his 
> call a harmless journey to call upon them that night, or as a_svirn 
> suggested, to  polite old man who has done the right thing in good 
> faith a criminal and a trespasser and scream him off your doorstep. 
> It's easy to see the reason they didn't was because they were 
> minding their manners.

The reason this argument doesn't hold water for me is that the
correspondence is all one-sided.  It isn't as if the Dursleys were
asking for Dumbledore's interference or his blessings.  They didn't
want to be part of the wizarding world, full stop.  They weren't
writing to him.  In fact, he seemed to know that they wouldn't really
welcome his visit.  He could have just picked Harry up and gone.  But
he had to do more.

You see, I had someone stalking me once, someone who would leave me
notes and flowers and gifts on the steps to the building I lived in,
things I never asked for and didn't want.  The notes had the usual
"I'm watching you" kind of language.  There was no return address to
write to, but when I left notes on the door politely refusing
(actually, saying the cops had been called and the neighbors alerted),
it didn't make a bit of difference.

Well, I wasn't actually injured, was I?  The cops even argued once
that someone who gave me a particular gift was really sweet and meant
well.  If my correspondent had ever showed up at my doorstep, the fact
that the person left letters and was "nice" to me wouldn't have
mattered much to me.  This person's respectful forebearance in not
turning a threat into reality -- I am not grateful for that.

I am not saying that Dumbledore is a stalker or malicious per se
(though I am wondering what he is forebearing on -- his judgment or
wrath? his wizarding prowess?).  But he is someone who feels his
concerns override everyone else's and his decisions are the only ones
that matter.  I do think he knew he wasn't really welcome, so he
coated his presence in pretend pleasantries and mead.  I do think the
Dursleys might see him as dangerous and malicious.  He is basically a
stranger who has given them "gifts" and notes, things they don't want,
with a threat behind them, because there is something he wants from
them.  If Petunia had the temerity to write to him and say, you're not
welcome, I bet he would have come anyway.  He felt he had the right to
interfere with their lives.

>SNIP
> > lealess:
> > If you are saying that Dumbledore wasn't rude, or arrogant, or 
> > just plain creepy, I don't buy it.  If you are saying he was out 
> > for some sort of weird but pointless revenge, that seems more 
> > likely. <snip>  if Dumbledore was in my house, I would have 
> > considered him rude, told him I really wasn't expecting him, and 
> > asked him to leave.  
> 
> Valky:
> In the midst of a World War? You would think it rude that he 
> protects you? Dumbledore gave the Dursleys a pause to make their 
> excuses while he stood at the doorway and they didn't. But supposing 
> you did, what would be your excuse in that moment. Dumbledore hadn't 
> been rude.
> 

If they asked for his protection, that's one thing.  We don't know
that they did.  They had this child thrust upon them, along with the
protection, because it suited Dumbledore.  And I wouldn't be surprised
if they "pay" when that protection ends.  (Again, I stress that I am
not defending the Dursleys' behavior towards Harry, which was
inexcusable.  Nevertheless, I can understand their hesitancy about
being involved with the wizarding world.)

Did Dumbledore give them a pause to make their excuses?  On the
contrary, he was waiting for them to invite him in.  When they didn't,
he strode in and took over.  He didn't ask permission.  He put the
words in their mouths.  He wouldn't brook excuses.

You asked for my excuse at that moment. I think it is in the last
quote above.  But in truth, I don't open doors without knowing who is
on the other side, so the interaction wouldn't have reached the point
the Dursleys' did, unless Dumbledore decided to break in through the
fireplace.  But wizards don't do that, do they?

The rules of etiquette you describe seem to be from a different
century altogether.  I doubt the Muggles of the 1990s adhered to them,
if they were even aware of them.  And I think Dumbledore had enough
contact with students and their parents to know that not even wizards
adhered to them, especially in a time of war, when caution had to be
exercised in opening doors to strangers.

lealess







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  8 09:05:08 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:05:08 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod)
Message-ID: <BAY101-F23025152BED666BFFA8DD391640@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 142660



 > PJ:

 > But they do touch! Each and every time an 11 year old Muggle child
 > gets a letter from Hogwarts, that new student's music, sports,
 > literature and (perhaps) art preferences goes right to Hogwarts
 > along with them! Like Harry, these children could've been exposed
 > to all of this at their public schools as well as from their
 > parents. Also when they go home for the summer and holidays they
 > hear any of the new music they missed while at school.

Nora:
>But their access thereto is pretty limited while they're at
>Hogwarts.  The side-effect (or perhaps side purpose) of this is to
>integrate people into their new society, both skills-wise and in
>cultural interest.  Given the "wow shiny new!" features of magic, and
>the seeming overt superiority of magical versions of things (see
>photography for a particularly apt example), it's harder than not, I
>would think, to proselytize their cultural interests to other
>students.  And we've seen that students do gradually become alienated
>from their 'home' culture; Hermione is a good example of this.
>Therefore I'm skeptical of just how much cultural interchange can
>really be promoted.

PJ:
Sorry but Hermione's a horrible example IMO.   I suspect it was far easier 
to sever ties for her (JKR can be ruthless!) than to have to mollify so many 
adults in each and every book.  Especially when 2 of those adults are 
muggles who would need endless pages of explanation so they wouldn't 
threaten to pull their daughter out of such a dangerous place as Hogwarts 
every year!  Without the trio where's the book?  :-)

While I agree that the wizarding culture is probably where most Muggleborn 
wizards will eventually make their lives I disagree that they would feel the 
need to make an either/or decision once they realized they had the best of 
*both* worlds!  If it really were routine to cut all ties to the Muggle 
World then I should think there would be many more 6th and 7th year kids 
staying on at Hogwarts during the holidays rather than going home to family. 
  As it is there are almost none at all around the tables (Trawlaney had her 
knickers in a knot over being the 13th to sit for Christmas Dinner).

I believe it has been established that there are approximately 50% 
Muggleborns in Hogwarts at any given time so they'd have plenty of others to 
discuss their interests with. Dean brought his football poster in and hung 
it proudly on his wall where no one gave it a thought except for Ron who 
couldn't understand why the people didn't move.   :-)

Anyway, back to my point... These kids formative years were spent with a 
certain style of music and I would suspect that some will grow up to be WW 
poets and musicians writing music in the same vein as what they enjoyed 
growing up...

PJ





From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Nov  8 09:30:46 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:30:46 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <005a01c5e3cd$0c9bdff0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dkpr86+motl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142661


> If, on the other hand, you mean that there is some consensus that, 
> in some vague way, Snape's treatment of Harry is "understandable" 
in 
> the sense of being "ameliorated in guilt or fault," I would say 
that 
> absolutely no such consensus exists, even on a very imprecise 
> level.  Certainly I do not accord any amelioration of guilt to 
Snape 
> in any way, his actions and attitudes are absolutely and utterly 
> unforgiveable.  Nor do I think Alla or Nora or many other people 
who 
> find Snape's actions objectionable would agree that there is any 
> kind of consensus on the issue whatsoever (and they may of course 
> disagree with me on that one).
> 
> 
> Lupinlore
> 
> Whether or not Snape turns out to be DDM, ESE,
> or just OFH, his behavior toward Harry is ridiculous and childish 
and not
> worthy of my respect or acceptance or understanding.
> 
> Sherry, completely agreeing with lupinlore
>

My feelings towards Snape are feelings of pity. His upbringing has 
turned him into a hateful individual.
IMO he detested his father. He disassociates himself from his muggle 
father with his use of the 'Half-blood prince' monniker, and we have 
seen (via Harry's unintentional occlumency) that Snape's father at 
least verbally abused his mother. Perhaps this prejudiced him against 
muggles and drove him towards the death eaters.
He was bullied by the Marauders at school, and even ridiculed in 
front of many others. He does not seem to have had many friends. 
He joined the death eaters, and IMO, Voldemort's treatment of the 
Potters reversed Snape's allegiance. If we believe DD, Snape probably 
hates himself for what happened to the Potters.

To conclude, I think that Snape is one of those people who has a 
massive chip on his shoulder about how his life has panned out. I 
think he feels pain about what has happened, and I think he inflicts 
pain where he can, and this makes him feel a little better. 
Is Snape a nice person - no! But I am always incredibly thankful that 
I grew up, surrounded by loving family, with good friends etc. I feel 
incredibly sorry for Snape, that he has had none of these things.
Plus, IMO, he is still trying to make up for the mistakes he has 
made. There is still honour within Snape, as well as the obvious 
unpleasantness.

Brothergib






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 10:53:19 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:53:19 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkp4lf+q5bu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkq02v+vcqp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142662

> lealess:  It seems a fine distinction between "pressing an 
> > advantage" and bullying when the one doing the pressing is 
arguably 
> > a superior creature, at least in power.  What choice does the 
> > inferior have, except to submit?
> 
> Valky responds:
> The distinction is there though, because DD does not come 
brandishing
> a wand and making threats, he extends the Dursleys diplomatic
> gestures, niceties and civilised custom.

a_svirn:
Would you mind explaining the difference between Dumbledore's 
niceties when he "presses his advantage" with the Dursleys and 
Voldemort's niceties when he demands Harry to observe the etiquette 
of the wizarding duel. The similarities are striking; do you think 
it was also a diplomatic gesture on Voldemort's part? 

> Alla:
> 
> I do NOT think that Dumbledore was being RESPECTFUL to Dursleys, 
in 
> that I suspect I agree with a_svirn. Am I making sense? He was 
being 
> polite as in "using formalities", but definitely not respecting 
them 
> as people.

a_svirn: well, he wasn't using formalities. On the contrary he broke 
every known rule of formal behaviour and a few laws along the line.

>Alla:
> 
> Harry wants to leave BEFORE Dumbledore starts his litle 
> demonstration, well he comes in, but does not do anything else yet.
>  I interpreted it that Harry is very anxious to leave the Dursleys 
> indeed. I did not interpret it  that Harry wanted to leave because 
> he was unhappy with how Dumbledore treated Dursleys. JMO of course

a_svirn:
Harry wants to leave both before and during this little performance. 
When he packed his trunk and came down only to find the cowering 
Dursleys and the serene Dumbledore he wanted to leave even more than 
before. You may think this episode is a good joke, but Harry never 
once sniggered or smirked. He was acutely uncomfortable throughout 
the proceedings. Looks like he's not a big fun of poetic justice. 

> Alla:
> 
> To me this scene was another example of "poetic justice" or " 
> vicarious retribution".

a_svirn:

There is nothing vicarious about this particular retribution. As for 
its being poetic justice, I daresay, but it's still bullying for all 
that. In fact, that's exactly what makes it an example of poetic 
justice ? the Dursleys getting some of their own medicine. 

> > a_svirn:
> > What do you mean "for a change"? We have seen wizards being rude 
> to 
> > them on Harry's behalf from the book 1.
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Could you refresh my recollection, please? Do you mean those who 
> came to Vernon on the street to congratulate him in PS/SS?
> If yes, I don't see it as rudeness, but more like desire to share 
> the overwhelming happiness with anybody, even with Vernon. 
>

a_svirn:

Well, no, I didn't mean that. Although while we on the subject I 
must say that it's not polite in the least to share 
your "overwhelming happiness" with the family who just suffered a 
bereavement. Especially if you are happy about something that caused 
the said bereavement in the first place.

But you can refresh your recollection by rereading the "Keeper of 
the Keys" chapter of the Philosopher Stone for instance. Here we 
have a wizard being boorishly rude on Harry's behalf. Not to mention 
violent on Dumbledore's.  







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  8 12:19:38 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:19:38 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkppii+igdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkq54q+vibi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142663

I wrote: <snipped argument pro-Dumbledore's manners at the Durselys in
Chapter 3 HBP>
 
Lealess replied:
> The reason this argument doesn't hold water for me is that the
> correspondence is all one-sided.  It isn't as if the Dursleys were
> asking for Dumbledore's interference or his blessings.  They didn't
> want to be part of the wizarding world, full stop.  They weren't
> writing to him.  In fact, he seemed to know that they wouldn't 
> really welcome his visit.  He could have just picked Harry up and   
> gone. But he had to do more.
> 
> You see, I had someone stalking me once, <snip> This person's 
> respectful forebearance in not
> turning a threat into reality -- I am not grateful for that.
> 
> I am not saying that Dumbledore is a stalker or malicious per se
> (though I am wondering what he is forebearing on -- his judgment or
> wrath? his wizarding prowess?). 

Valky:
Answering your last question first, when I say that Dumbledore
exercised forbearance with the Dursleys I am saying that he did it in
not calling on them for genial visits that were clearly not wanted, or
writing them with a bunch of unnecessary cordialities throughout the
time that they took care of Harry. I guess you could say he refrained
from stalking, as it were. However, Harry clearly needed Dumbledore in
his life, there is nothing untoward about that, except that the
Dursleys do not approve of Wizardkind (or Harry), if it was otherwise
untoward, then sure the Dursleys could and would exercise their polite
refusal of his advance into their lives, and would not be remiss in
doing so. 

But Dumbledore's intrusion was two important things 1. It was a
*necessary* part of their (informal?) contractual relationship (ie
Dumbledore had come to tell them it would shortly end). 2. It was
*one* small ask in 15 years of a 'seemingly' understood mutual
acquaintance. 

As of OOtP I am under the impression that Dumbledore didn't like the
arrangement any more than the Dursleys did, but he says himself,
Petunia was the only best hope for the world. In the context of the
story, I think Dumbledore has to be admitted to have done OK with the
lot that was his responsibility, of course he couldn't be perfect, but
I don't envy him the opportunity to prove how perfectly such a huge
responsibility can be dealt with. What I am saying is that
Dumbledore's respect for the Dursleys was sincere, it must have been,
Petunia is just short of a WW hero for having done so unwittingly what
she has done in keeping Harry alive and in her home, by keeping her
secrets. As awful as she is, she's extremely important, and she may
have just *saved* the Wizard World. I can't imagine Dumbledore not
having genuine and sincere respect for that fact. I am positive that a
character like Dumbledore would have held the slim hope for all those
fifteen years that the Dursleys would eventually come to a day when
they could accept the thanks of the wizard kind for their contribution
and know how they had saved their own world. 

If they only realised. O_o

I personally won't compare Dumbledore to any kind of stalker. We
simply do know he was not malicious for a start, his intentions were
entirely above board. I honestly think the Dursleys knew that as well
as we do. He didn't interfere half as much as some would have. 


Lealess:
> But he is someone who feels his
> concerns override everyone else's and his decisions are the only 
> ones that matter.  

Valky:
But I think in this case I think he was right, don't you? 
He couldn't exactly bring an ownerless Kreacher to an unprotected
street corner could he? It was important business needing to be
addressed without delay. Neither could he, as Secret Keeper for the
Order, discuss the location of the Order Headquarters in a place that
could be infiltrated, unfortunately for the Dursleys Harry's business
was best conducted in Harry's home. For the safety of everyone.
Dumbledore also had business with the Dursley's, so they were not
merely convenient, it involved them to know the details of the
arrangement that Petunia had agreed to. Dumbledore couldn't send this
in an Owl to them in the current circumstances of War, and a Patrons
wouldn't do Vernon a whole lot of good. With all this necessity upon
them to meet and have this discussion, it remains my opinion that for
Dumbledore to come bearing so much diplomacy and sensitivity to custom
as well is beyond the call. 
 



Lealess:
> I do think he knew he wasn't really welcome, so he
> coated his presence in pretend pleasantries and mead.  

Valky:
I understand what you're saying here, but it goes to exactly what I am
saying, the coating of pleasantry *is* custom. It is the proper
etiquette of white collar brits *to* coat with pleasantries. You will
see at the beginning of POA, this *is Vernon's* way. 
I am saying Dumbledore didn't do it because he knew he wasn't welcome,
but that he did it in good faith that proper manners were the
expectation of the Dursley's. Proper announcement, punctual arrival,
correct introduction of adults, appropriate small talk, acknowledge
and address the head of the house-hold etc. That Dumbledore assumes
the social graces of Vernon Dursley is a compliment the Dursley's
*want* to be a part of the pomp and ceremony of formal civility
Dumbledore is giving them that for that reason.



Lealess:
> I do think the
> Dursleys might see him as dangerous and malicious.  He is basically 
> a stranger who has given them "gifts" and notes, things they don't 
> want, with a threat behind them, because there is something he wants 
> from them.  

Valky:
I agree that they see wizarding in general as dangerous, they say so
themselves. But I am quite sure they don't consider DD personally
dangerous to them, and that he has never given them reason to fear
him. Vernon seems to have plenty of pluck, at least, he is not under
any impression of threat directly from Dumbledore. Petunia neither
seems frightened of Dumbeldore himself, she in fact seems to be far
more terrified of Harry. Dudley is scared of wizards and, as I said
before, he has good reason, after Hagrid and then Fred and George both
gave him a serving. 


Lealess:
> If Petunia had the temerity to write to him and say, you're not
> welcome, I bet he would have come anyway.  He felt he had the right 
> to interfere with their lives.

Valky:
Well no, I am not 100% sure of that. I am under the impression that
had Petunia refused with absolute certainty other arrangements would
be made for Harry. If that were to happen though it would be highly
dangerous for everyone so I assume a lot of Dumbeldore's forebearance
was because he didn't want to force that upon them.

Lealess:
> If they asked for his protection, that's one thing.  We don't know
> that they did. 

Valky:
Just to be clear, when I said Dumbledore was protecting everyone I
meant specifically when he stepped inside the house and closed the
door, making sure to say that everyone would be safer to continue the
conversation behind the closed door. In the midst of war, which the
Dursleys are aware is in progress, it is a fair thing to do. 

After introducing himself Dumbledore pauses and waits for the Dursleys
to say their piece. They can make their excuses here, but Dumbledore
knows he has pressed his advantage on their hospitality now to the
point where they wouldn't feel it was acceptable to make excuses. Yes,
it's not a gesture brimming with kindness, but it's acceptable
etiquette, really it is. 

Lealess:
> They had this child thrust upon them, along with the
> protection, because it suited Dumbledore.  

Valky:
I think that's really a harsh call, I could never understand why
anyone would imply Dumbledore gave Harry to the Dursleys for selfish
reasons. The Potterverse called upon Petunia to help and she answered
the call, in doing so she knowingly accepted an association with the
Wizard World. The whole thing hints to me that it suited Petunia no
less, but I could be wrong.

Lealess;
> Did Dumbledore give them a pause to make their excuses?  On the
> contrary, he was waiting for them to invite him in.  When they 
> didn't, he strode in and took over.  He didn't ask permission.  He 
> put the words in their mouths.  He wouldn't brook excuses.

Valky:
I actually think that Dumbledore knew not to expect excuses. We have
any number of examples of Dumbledore's artfulness to back that up. We
are lead to believe that Dumbledore knows well who he is dealing with
throughout the books. Even shortly after in the next chapter we are
reminded of Dumbledore's ability to know what a person will respond to
and how by taking Harry to persuade Slughorn. 



> Lealess:
> You asked for my excuse at that moment. I think it is in the last
> quote above.  But in truth, I don't open doors without knowing who 
> is on the other side, so the interaction wouldn't have reached the 
> point the Dursleys' did, unless Dumbledore decided to break in 
> through the fireplace.  But wizards don't do that, do they?

Valky:
LOL Dumbledore doesn't. :) 
My main point is that Dumbledore is aware of which buttons to push
with the Dursleys, he is aware of his advantage. Uppercrust British
custom explains a lot of why Dumbledore got away with what he did at
the Dursley's, regardless that it would not have worked on some of us. 
Besides Dumbledore only tried it on the Dursleys to get something done
that most of us would probably have been amenable to without any need
for pressed advantage anyway.


> Lealess:
> The rules of etiquette you describe seem to be from a different
> century altogether.  I doubt the Muggles of the 1990s adhered to 
> them, if they were even aware of them.  

Valky:
[laughing very hard now} Oh Lealess, you would be so surprised! I am
in Australia now and we have this reality TV show called Australian
Princess, I am giggling just thinking about it.. Honestly Lealess the
white-collar mob still maintain their sniff these days. <bg>









From ornawn at 013.net  Tue Nov  8 11:05:41 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:05:41 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
Message-ID: <dkq0q5+decn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142664

>Lupinlore

>True threats would have been
>something else again (for instance letting Vernon spend a weekend as
>a turnip), and I suspect would have worked very well indeed.

>Which, as I believe Alla has pointed out, is yet another reason that
>JKR seems to be backing away from the whole issue. As is her bad
>habit, she really didn't think that whole situation through very
>thoroughly at all. 


Orna:
I agree that DD could have bullied the Dursleys into treating Harry 
better. The mere owl-post addressed towards Harry in the cupboard 
was enough to give him a room upstairs. But, that wouldn't be the 
point. I mean ? the whole thing about caring and loving is that it 
has to be done willfully. That's what Voldermort is incapable of 
understanding, when he coerces people into obedience, and thinks 
himself powerful, because of that. I don't see DD coercing the 
Dursleys into caring-like behavior, if it's not an absolute MUST. I 
liked the scene, because, DD's real power was the way he talked, and 
that's also IMO what made Petunia flinch ? something got through to 
her.  (Reminds of his wandless dialogue with Draco, which has the 
power to bring Draco to some real confession of the terror he is 
from Voldermort) .  I think that JKR is very consistent in ways of 
showing the many faces of power, and drawing a (not always easy 
line) between coercive and abusive power, and "love-power". 

Orna








From happydogue at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 14:14:05 2005
From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:14:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
In-Reply-To: <dkpg86+nsu5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C7B285CF9358C1-16E0-1099@FWM-R05.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142665

As for being a " whiny, intellectual"  I grew up in th 70's my self and totally skipped the whole rock thing.  Never listend never will. The more it was pushed the more I rebelled against it wanting to be a goth before anyone had even heard of them.  I move right to the classical side of music.  It was another way to rebell against the standard culture.  Withj Snape's intellectual pullings I can see him moving away from what the rest of the kids of his time were doing.
 
JMM
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sydney <sydpad at yahoo.com>
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:23:02 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)



> > >>Krista (wondering what music Jogging!Snape has on his iPod)


Okay, I swear this nearly over.. ;)  So, I've grilled the boyfriend 
on the subject of Snape's musical tastes, seeing as he's someone who 
not only grew up in a crap town in England in the seventies, but 
actually played in a crap band.  He was suspiciously quick off the 
mark with an answer for someone who claims to have only read the 
books once, but that aside...

The gist:  the Clash and punk would be way too cool for Snape- 
that's more what Sirius would have listened to.  Snape would would 
be the one one for whiny, intellectual, rock-snob prog rock.  He 
recommends the Alan Parsons Project "I Robot", and you can actually 
listen to "Court of the Crimson King" here: 
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?
cd_id=1911 which I confess does sound like a angry, self-pitying 
Snape, with a "I'm so sensitive no one understands me" 
undercurrent.  I'm readier than some to embrace lame!Snape so, yup.  

I asked about Pink Floyd, and he said he didn't mention it because 
it was, I quote, "so obvious".  He would also like to add, "Hello?  
Black Sabbath?"

Vengeance on Sirius for lameness though:  Alan Parsons Project 
actually wrote an unbelievably lame song called "Sirius" (listen 
here:  
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?
cd_id=1091 ) which features the lyrics  "Don't think sorry's easily 
said /Don't try turning tables instead /You've taken lots of chances 
before..."

Oh, he did say there was no way anybody living anywhere in England 
in the 70's could avoid having rock inflicted on them, would they or 
no.  He seemed amazed there were any two opinions on the subject. :)

If anybody thinks this is terribly off topic, I would like to lay a 
bet that JKR could instantly supply a list of bands for all her 70's 
generation characters, whether she actually thought they listened to 
them or not.

-- Sydney, who must see "Spinal Tap" again...






Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to 
which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov  8 14:51:42 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:51:42 -0000
Subject: Foolish, but benign, DD (was Etiquette)
In-Reply-To: <dkq0q5+decn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkqe1u+ueih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142666

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" <ornawn at 0...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> Orna:
> I agree that DD could have bullied the Dursleys into treating 
Harry 
> better. The mere owl-post addressed towards Harry in the cupboard 
> was enough to give him a room upstairs. But, that wouldn't be the 
> point. I mean ? the whole thing about caring and loving is that it 
> has to be done willfully. 

Well, I think that would have been VERY MUCH the point.  In a lot of 
ways, DD comes across as a fool no matter how you cut it.  If he was 
not a fool to trust Snape, he was a fool to believe in the 
possibility of the Dursleys acting well, and a fool for not 
forcefully intervening at a much earlier date.  Which goes with the 
idea of him being rather too detached to really understand what's 
going on around him, sometimes.

Now, I will allow that JKR didn't start out to make DD look like a 
fool.  But, unfortunately, she backed herself, and DD, into a corner 
with that ill-considered final speech in OOTP and then had to rescue 
him with some hand-waving and tacit rewriting of cannon.  
Unfortunately, the only escape hatch within reach was to fall back 
on Dumbledore as the detached and foolish, but benign and well-
meaning, old man who really doesn't always understand the people 
around him.  It makes DD look like a bungler, particularly 
considering his disastrous failure to handle the Snape/Harry 
relationship (and once again regardless of whether he was correct to 
trust Snape or not), but better a benign bungler than a cold 
manipulator.


Lupinlore









From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  8 16:32:59 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:32:59 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkq54q+vibi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkqjvr+cho2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142667

> Lealess replied:
> The reason this argument doesn't hold water for me is that the
> correspondence is all one-sided.  It isn't as if the Dursleys were
> asking for Dumbledore's interference or his blessings.  They
> didn't want to be part of the wizarding world, full stop.<snip>  
> If Petunia had the temerity to write to him and say, you're not
> welcome, I bet he would have come anyway.  He felt he had the
> right to interfere with their lives. <snip> If they asked for his
> protection, that's one thing.  We don't know that they did. 

> Valky:
> I am under the impression that had Petunia refused with absolute
> certainty other arrangements would be made for Harry. If that were
> to happen though it would be highly dangerous for everyone so I
> assume a lot of Dumbeldore's forebearance was because he didn't
> want to force that upon them.

Jen: I hope getting more information on why Petunia agreed to take 
Harry in the first place(and the WW intrusions as part of the 
package) will more fully explain both the Howler and Dumbledore's 
visit. The new light cast on these events could make Dumbledore's 
visit more ominous, i.e. we discover he more or less forced Petunia 
to take Harry and used fear as a weapon, or it could explain why he 
felt the right to impose on the Dursleys, if Petunia agreed in 
exchange for something she valued.

Valky went on to say later in her post: "The whole thing hints to me 
that it suited Petunia no less, but I could be wrong" and this 
echoes my thoughts. Until we know what was in the letter left on the 
doorstep and the letters Dumbledore sent *only* to Petunia prior, I 
won't be convinced Petunia didn't invite the WW into her home. 

Otherwise it simply doesn't fit! We have no motive for Petunia to 
make this extraordinary move, no love for Lily or Harry or because 
she wishes the best for the magical world, lol. The only halfway 
decent motive we used to have was fear, yet Vernon and Petunia were 
not at all fearful to raise Harry as an invisible & unwanted son, 
withold his heritage and family information from him, and attempt to 
keep him from attending Hogwarts. They did not follow the wishes 
Dumbledore spelled out in the letter at ALL and suffered no 
repurcussions. Fear as a motive weakened considerably for me after 
HBP.

Jen, trying to decide if Petunia took Harry in to protect the ones 
she does love, or because Dumbledore offered her magical cleaning 
skills in return. ;)






From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 17:15:06 2005
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:15:06 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
Message-ID: <1a7.4368263f.30a2371a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142668

 
In a message dated 11/8/2005 1:23:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
sydpad at yahoo.com writes:

Snape  would would 
be the one one for whiny, intellectual, rock-snob prog  rock.  He 
recommends the Alan Parsons Project "I Robot", and you can  actually 
listen to "Court of the Crimson King" here:  



==================
Sherrie here:
 
King Crimson!  Absolutely!  Personally, I've always connected  Snape with 
Emerson Lake & Palmer, as well - "Abaddon's Bolero", "Knife-Edge"  - though I 
suspect he's skip over "Benny the Bouncer"...& "Love Beach" would  make him sick 
up...  
 
And Genesis, before Gabriel left.
 
Sherrie
(who grew up in the '70s...listening to ELP)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From ctcasares at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 17:55:25 2005
From: ctcasares at yahoo.com (tylerswaxlion)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:55:25 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Protection Lost at 17???
In-Reply-To: <dkpjfu+4ivg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkqoqd+lt04@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142669

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:


People are always confusing and intermixing Lily's Sacrifice 
Protection and the Dumbledore's Protection by Lily's Blood at the 
Dursley's. 
 Steve/bboyminn

----------


But wasn't Lily's Sacrifice Protection nullified, or, at least, 
abated, in GOF?  Harry's blood was used to restore Voldemort, and now 
Voldemort should be able to touch Harry.  Don't have the dang book 
handy, sorry.

Dumbledore's Protection by Lily's Blood may have some unknown 
constraint having to do with childhood and a childhood home, which is 
why he was required to live at a blood relative's house at least part 
of a year.  

Wizarding World children may become adults at 17 for a magical reason--
childhood protection charms may cease to have affect at that point.  
Seventeen is the age when they are allowed to Apparate and do more 
sophisticated magic, but maybe there are magical constraints that 
prevent children from Apparating before 17.  Think about how difficult 
it would be to corral preschoolers if they were Apparating 
everywhere.  Certain stronger magics may have built-in childlocks.

There's no canonical proof either way, b/c we've never really been 
told what Dumbledore did or what he told Petunia.  But I can see 
Dumbledore's spell wearing off as Harry came of age.  
  

Tyler








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 18:22:28 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:22:28 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
In-Reply-To: <1a7.4368263f.30a2371a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dkqqd4+u0tf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142670


> Sherrie here:
>  
> King Crimson!  Absolutely!  

*slaps forehead*  Oh my god, Snape HAS to have been a prog-rock fan--
who on earth else would call himself THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE!?! Can't
you just SEE the airbrushed stonehenge album covers?  God bless 'im,
he only just escaped playing Dungeons and Dragons by a couple of years...

I just want to HUG him now.

-- Sydney, who herself washed her hands of the whole affair as a
teenager and, like JMM, listened exclusively to classical and opera







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 18:47:19 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:47:19 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Protection Lost at 17???
In-Reply-To: <dkqoqd+lt04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkqrrn+b1n2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142671

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" <ctcasares at y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> People are always confusing and intermixing Lily's Sacrifice 
> Protection and the Dumbledore's Protection by Lily's Blood at
> the Dursley's. 
>  Steve/bboyminn
> 
> ----------
> Tyler:
> 
> But wasn't Lily's Sacrifice Protection nullified, or, at least, 
> abated, in GOF?  Harry's blood was used to restore Voldemort, 
> and now Voldemort should be able to touch Harry.  ...
> 

bboyminn:

I think Harry still has Lily's Sacrifice Protection, but the nature of
it has change. Voldemort can touch Harry now, but that, I suspect, is
the only aspect of the Protection that did changed. Harry still has
the /general/ protection afforded him by his mother's sacrifice.

I'm sure Dumbledore has spoken of Lily's continued protection after
this incident. I thought perhaps it was in his end of book /talk/ to
Harry at the end of GoF. I did a quick scan and didn't see it though,
but I am confident it has come up in later books.

> Tyler:
>
> Dumbledore's Protection by Lily's Blood may have some unknown 
> constraint having to do with childhood and a childhood home, 
> which is why he was required to live at a blood relative's house
> at least part of a year.  
> 
> Wizarding World children may become adults at 17 for a magical 
> reason-- childhood protection charms may cease to have affect at
> that point.  
> ...edited...
> 
> There's no canonical proof either way, b/c we've never really been 
> told what Dumbledore did or what he told Petunia.  But I can see 
> Dumbledore's spell wearing off as Harry came of age.    
> 
> Tyler


Bboyminn:

I'm not disagreeing with you, ..well, that would be hard since you are
agreeing with me... we agree on the result but have different ideas on
the method. I think I see the end of Dumbledore's Protections Charms
as simply a matter of Harry being an adult, and as an adult, the
Dursleys are no longer his guardians. They go from guadians and
protectors to merely his aunt and uncle. Since they are no longer his
guardians, since Harry is free and independant, the Protection Charms
that invoke Lily's Blood in Petunia are no longer valid. 

This seems to make sense, if Harry leaves the Dursley's at any young
age, that ends the protection. He has to call their house his home,
and he has to be under their care and protection for the charm to
work. I suspect that even if Harry lives with them, the charm ends at
17 because that's when the Dursely's responsibility to care for Harry
ends.

It's a subtle difference, but I really don't see it as anything more
complicated than that.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 18:48:11 2005
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:48:11 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
Message-ID: <1c8.35768438.30a24ceb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142672

 
In a message dated 11/8/2005 1:23:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
sydpad at yahoo.com writes:

God  bless 'im,
he only just escaped playing Dungeons and Dragons by a couple of  years...


------------------
Sherrie here:
 
He did???  Gosh, I learned to play in '75 - from my  then-boyfriend.  We were 
only 3 years older than Snape et al - & some  of our players were actually 
younger than he would have been.  That was the  original, of course - I don't 
think AD&D had come out yet, or at least it  hadn't made it to upstate NY.
 
I don't see Snape getting too much into D&D, though it would be  interesting 
to speculate what kind of character he'd come up with...
 
Sherrie
(off to check the copyright dates on her Monster Manual & such - might  be 
worth a couple dollars)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lealess at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 20:27:59 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:27:59 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
In-Reply-To: <dkqqd4+u0tf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr1of+hjv6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142674

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Sherrie here:
> >  
> > King Crimson!  Absolutely!  
> 
> *slaps forehead*  Oh my god, Snape HAS to have been a prog-rock 
> fan--who on earth else would call himself THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE!?! 
> Can't you just SEE the airbrushed stonehenge album covers?  God 
> bless 'im, he only just escaped playing Dungeons and Dragons by a 
> couple of years...
>
> I just want to HUG him now.
> 
> -- Sydney, who herself washed her hands of the whole affair as a
> teenager and, like JMM, listened exclusively to classical and opera
>

Was he too young for glam?  The kid in the movie "Velvet Goldmine"
could play a younger Snape.  But prog-rock?  Would he have wanted to
spend the time on it?  Those songs are L-O-N-G!

Here's a site that lists albums by the year they came out:
http://www.oldielyrics.com/years.html

For 1975, I vote for Bob Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks", created in the
disappointment of a broken marriage.  Dylan can hold his own with
Snape in terms of snarky personality any day.

lealess






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Tue Nov  8 20:42:43 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:42:43 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkpa1l+r8r0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr2k3+8jtp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142675

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Justin" <downtownnac at y...> 
wrote:
>
> No doubt, the current consensus is that RAB is Regulus Black. 
> Personally, I think that is total nonsense for a number of reasons. 
> The only reason that he is candidate number one is due to the 
> initials RAB. 

Hickengruendler:

And because there was a locket not unlike the Slytherin one in 
Grimmauld Place in book 5. That's another strong hint towards Regulus.

> However, if we have learned anything from Rowling, it 
> is never to trust in a name (ie Riddle turned out to be Voldemort, 
> The HBP was Snape). Knowing how crafty Rowling is with her names, 
> and how nothing is ever as it seems in her wizarding world, why 
does 
> most of the HP fan base believe that she would now, so close to the 
> end, deliever us such an obvious clue to one of the biggest 
> mysteries thus far?

Hickengruendler:

IMHO, people seem to forget that the idendity of R.A.B. is not that 
important to the books. It is a minor mystery, probably leading to 
the destruction of one more Horcrux. One from four, nd that does not 
include Voldemort himself. And the initials might be obvious for us, 
who have spent months discussing the possibility that Regulus might 
still be alive, but I do not think it is *that* obvious for the 
casual readers. Solvable, definitely, but not too obvious. Anyway, I 
find this not any more obvious than the true idendity of Arabella 
Figg after the end of GoF. Besides, the Melissa/Emerson interview, 
where she considered Regulus a "good guess" for R.A.B. is another 
strong hint. Not because of her answer itself, but because she first 
talks about R.A.B. and then continues to talk about Regulus, as if 
they are the same person.

And also, the initials R.A.B. are meant to be a hint, because the 
Trio have to start with their search somewhere. The idendity has to 
be solvable enough for the Trio to solve it. Plus, R.A.B. wrote that 
letter for Voldemort to read, because he wanted Voldemort to know, 
that R.A.B. was cleverer than the Dark Lord thought. Meaning that 
Voldemort was meant to know, who the writer of the message was. The 
three letters R.A.B. were meant should tell him everything.

 Furthermore, if we are going to base RAB 
> candidates soley on initials, the why hasn't Amelia Bones been 
given 
> more discussion. 

Hickengruendler:

Probably because her full name, as given during the hearing in OotP, 
is Amelia Susan Bones. Therefore the initials do not fit. 

I snipped your theory about Filch. It certainly was an original one 
(and my problem with nearly all internet theories, is that I have a 
hard time recognizing which are meant serious, and which are also 
seen as playful *what ifs*), but even ignoring that the initials do 
not fit at all, I want to point out, that R.A.B. said, that he will 
probably be dead, when the message is found. Even if we could argue, 
that he might be mistaken, why should JKR include this statement, if 
not as a hint, that R.A.B. is indeed dead? 

Hickengruendler   






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 20:56:35 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:56:35 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
Message-ID: <dkr3e3+ndc0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142676

We all know that the plot of Book 7 will require Harry (presumably
with some help) to find and destroy four Horcruxes (locket, cup,
Nagini, and something from Ravenclaw) and, ultimately, to confront and
defeat Voldemort. Most of us assume that Snape will perform some
crucial role and that Pettigrew's silver hand will come into play.

But what about the other (not so minor) characters, especially Ron and
Hermione? What will Hermione do if she doesn't have the Hogwarts
library at hand to do her research? And what about Ron's skills at
chess, and for that matter, his fear of spiders? (I'm
oversimplifying--of course there's more to the two characters than
these few traits.)

I think that Ginny will be the Trio's contact at Hogwarts via the
two-way mirror (Harry will find Sirius Black's mirror at 12 GP and use
a simple Reparo charm to fix his own). Maybe Hagrid will take care of
Hedwig, who's too conspicuous for Harry to use as a means of
communication, so maybe Harry will use his Patronus to communicate
with Lupin, who (IMO) will need to remain at 12 GP as he can no longer
spy on the werewolves (his cover is blown--the DEs saw him fighting as
an Order member at Hogwarts).

And surely the Percy arc will have to be completed. He's not exactly
reconciled with his family despite having been forgiven (and hugged)
by his mother. I keep remembering Molly's Boggart in OoP, which I
think foreshadows the actual as opposed to near death of at least one
member of the Weasley family. And I don't think it will be Ginny,
Arthur, or Bill, all of whom have had their turns, or Molly herself,
who is not part of the Boggart vision. (The fact that Ginny and
Charlie aren't shown isn't irrelevant, IMO--either they "died" before
Harry entered or the Boggart hadn't got to them yet.)

I'm disappointed, BTW, that all the hands on Molly's clock are
*already* pointing to mortal peril. What good is that? If one of her
children is in genuine danger, threatened by a dragon (Charlie) or
kidnapped from their Diagon Alley shop by DEs (the Twins), how will
she know that their "peril" is more "mortal" than that of the rest of
the family sitting in relative safety in the Burrow?

So, what side plots (aside from Snape and RAB, which have been
thoroughly discussed) really, really need to be resolved and what role
will the sidekicks, subordinate heroes, and other minor characters
(Luna, Neville, Dobby, Percy, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, Slughorn . . . . )
play in resolving them? (Well, okay, we can include Snape here in
relation to future actions as opposed to past motivations and events.)

What themes other than choice and Love and where Snape's loyalties lie
(house unity? wizards' attitudes toward other magical beings?) can and
should be woven into the plot without extending the book to 800 pages?

Carol, hoping we've at least seen the last of S.P.E.W.







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov  8 21:01:37 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:01:37 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkpd8r+v5lg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr3nh+81k7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142677


> Christina:
<SNIP>
I know a lot of people consider Snape's primary character flaw his tendency to prey on those weaker than himself (although I believe he learned that from James and Sirius, but that's another thread), and I've definitely spoken to people who have said that it is this behavior that prevents them from thinking that Snape can ever come to any good.  I'd really like to hear from people in this camp regarding the Dumbledore/Dursley scene.  
> 

Lupinlore:
Well, as one from that camp:

The one situation has absolutely, utterly, and unquestionably 
NOTHING to do with the other.  Snape is a cruel and sadistic man who 
I expect to be severely and specifically punished for his behavior 
in the last book, or else JKR is a very bad writer indeed who has 
absolutely no ability to craft a well-written and satisfying story.  
The Dursleys are cruel and sadistic people who have experienced the 
beginning of severe punishment that I expect to continue into the 
seventh book or, as I say, JKR has no idea how to craft a well-
written and satisfying story.  

Rather simple, when you get down to it.


Lupinlore








From apollo414j at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 20:35:51 2005
From: apollo414j at yahoo.com (apollo414j)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:35:51 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkpdu9+ujo1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr277+53i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142678

Chrstina:
> First of all, in the strictest definition, canon is what is in the
> books, period.  Get a little looser, and you can include what JKR 
has said in interviews.  The announcement that RAB was Regulus Black 
that did appear on the hp-lexicon has since been taken down.  Now it 
just says under Regulus's profile that "many fans suspect he might be 
the mysterious RAB."


Apollo414j:
Definitely. I think it's important to note that Rowling writes a 
great deal of her books based on ideas of misdirection and guiding 
people in the wrong direction. While RAB quite possibly could be 
Regulus, it would be very "Rowling" of Rowling to lead us into 
believing that it's Regulus and then startle us with the surprise 
that it's someone entirely different.

Apollo414j.







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 21:10:33 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:10:33 -0000
Subject: WW as Parasite (was:Snape's iPod)
In-Reply-To: <dkp2vs+2sl0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr489+t5cj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142679


> Nora: 
> Pentatony can be conceptualized as a subset of the diatonic scale, 
> you know. :) 

a_svirn:
I suppose. And Chinese characters can be transcribed with Latin 
letters.
 
> Nora: 
> Melodic formation...okay, that's getting way too far 
> afield for onlist, I think.  And tuning and temperament is the 
> discussion from the deep pits.  But it is amazing how easily music 
> cultures borrow and adapt ideas from other cultures, very quickly 
but 
> in totally idiosyncratic ways.

a_svirn:
But that's what Besty's initial point was, or did I get it wrong? 
That wizarding culture borrows and adopts ideas from the muggle 
world. Since the process is not for obvious reasons reciprocal, I'd 
say, it qualifies as parsimony.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov  8 21:33:01 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:33:01 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkr277+53i2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr5id+dpjp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142680

> Apollo414j:
> Definitely. I think it's important to note that Rowling writes a 
> great deal of her books based on ideas of misdirection and guiding 
> people in the wrong direction. While RAB quite possibly could be 
> Regulus, it would be very "Rowling" of Rowling to lead us into 
> believing that it's Regulus and then startle us with the surprise 
> that it's someone entirely different.

Magpie:

Is that really very Rowling?  Because it doesn't seem that way to me 
at all.  Fandom always talks about her leading us on, and I can't 
honestly remember when she has.  Sometimes she'll say something that 
is only truly understood in retrospect, but as someone who 
admittedly doesn't follow interviews carefully it doesn't seem like 
she intentionally shoves people down the wrong path.  What I see 
more often are things that seem very straightforward dismissed by 
fandom because it's just assumed she's doing that.  For instance, I 
thought she all but announced Ron/Hermione in interviews other 
people find very ambiguous, and I remember her "Snape has no 
connection to vampires that I know of" turned into a cryptic way of 
saying the theory still lived.  I mean, even here, how has Rowling 
led us into believing it's Regulus?  She just put the initials in 
and when asked if RAB was Regulus gave a carefully noncommital 
answer.

In terms of RAB, while I'm willing to believe she's got a good story 
reason for whoever it is, so far Regulus is the best answer.  Not 
only is Amelia Bones not much of a fit (we normally expect people to 
have unknown middle names, not unknown first ones, so even if her 
third name wasn't Susan it would be a little contrived) but she's 
completely uninteresting as the Horcrux thief.  If it were someone 
like her or Filch we'd basically be talking about a story completely 
made up in Book VII--and that may be what we're talking about--or, 
pre-book VII, a story completely made up by fans because we could 
come up with that name.  The identity only becomes interesting after 
the author explains to us why it's interesting.  Whereas if it's 
Regulus, it's interesting already.

Regulus, to me, seems the best solution because he's been carefully 
positioned the way Rowling, to me, seems to do it.  He's mentioned 
casually in OotP in Grimmauld Place, and his story is given to us by 
Sirius, who in this case is obviously an unreliable narrator.  Then 
he's mentioned, I think, two or three times more in HBP.  We're 
reminded he's Sirius' younger brother, that he was Slytherin, that 
he was a Death Eater who only survived a few days after defecting, 
and that he and Sirius were the last of their line and the Blacks 
may occasionally use magic based on familial blood. 

So I think finding out there is more to Regulus story than meets the 
eye--that, to me, is the type of thing JKR does.  Really, in reading 
the series, it seems like she usually plays fair with things like 
that.  I spent *a lot* of OotP stewing over that vanishing cabinet 
and wondering why Montague's misery kept getting brought up and I'm 
pleased there was another reason for that.  So far I think Regulus 
has been set up to tie into the main storyline and themes of the 
series, somehow, in a similar way.  Conversations about him hit 
that "this is an important thing about the past we need to know more 
about" note, and I don't think the increased mentions of him (after 
our never knowing he existed until the casual mention in OotP) seem 
even more important.  His connection to Sirius and the rest makes 
him a far more satisfying solution than any other I've heard.  
Anyone-but-Regulus theories can get overly-complicated to me (which 
doesn't make me right, of course).  For instance, to look at the 
comparison between RAB=Regulus and HBP=Snape, sure Snape being the 
HBP was a surprise in the narrative because Harry was friendly with 
him and all that, but when you cut down the suspects to people Harry 
actually has something to do with so that the identify of the HBP 
means something to him, you pretty much come up Snape.  

-m






From ornawn at 013.net  Tue Nov  8 21:24:30 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:24:30 -0000
Subject: Foolish, but benign, DD (was Etiquette)
Message-ID: <dkr52e+73lj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142681

>Lupinlore

>Well, I think that would have been VERY MUCH the point. In a lot of
>ways, DD comes across as a fool no matter how you cut it.
>It makes DD look like a bungler, particularly
>considering his disastrous failure to handle the Snape/Harry
>relationship (and once again regardless of whether he was correct to
>trust Snape or not), but better a benign bungler than a cold
>manipulator.

Orna
I think it has to do, with what DD vision is of helping Harry (and 
other people) to develop. In PS McGonagall is quite shocked, having 
Harry grow in such a Muggle and Bullying Family. She is right in 
telling him, that lots of Wizarding Families would be happy to raise 
Harry.   DD, who doesn't speak then about the blood-protection, 
prefers Harry to grow in a family, which doesn't treat him as some 
special phenomenon, and thus "magically" protect him from the 
hardships of growing. I mean, Dudley is some perverted mirror, of 
what might happen to a boy raised in unending and unrealistic 
spoiling admiration. It seems, he hoped Harry would have a more 
balanced upbringing ? he was wrong. And, as you say ? not the only 
time. Does it make him foolish? I'm not sure. It has the hallmark of 
being to optimistically trusting ? when you shouldn't be. But, after 
all, these are complicated life-situations, and I'm not sure, I 
would be happy with a magical/coercive solution to them. On the 
other hand - you have a point ? I mean, if something wrong and 
abusive is going on, and you have some sort of power to put an end 
to it ? wouldn't it be your ethical duty to do it? 
I was thinking, that for some reason, in many complicated 
situations, DD prefers the non-magic way of speaking calmly, and 
forcefully (or the human way of magic ? if you want to call it like 
that  - talking, relating)  ? and letting life take his choices . It 
happens in the trial of Harry, in OotP, it seems in his dialogues 
with Snape, and of course his treatment of Tom Riddle, while he is 
at school. I'm sort of trying to think on what occasions he chooses 
magic. 

I think there is some complex interplay between cold and sometimes 
amused manipulation, magic, and sincere talking. And I'm not able to 
locate the key to when he chooses which. But all in all, I have the 
feeling, that the further the books advance, the magic gets more 
similar to human interaction and less big-bang magic. I think, 
that's what I meant, when I said, that the point wouldn't be to 
magically force the Dursleys to treat Harry better.  Should he have 
talked to them earlier? Perhaps. After all, we see him intervene 
with the Howler, when Harry's life is endangered by them. There is 
some detachment in his acting (not to mention having his study in a 
detached place guarded by ridiculous passwords). But it comes back 
to ? what is his function for Harry, and the other people there ? is 
he there to make their life as smooth as possible, or to guide them 
through finding their way in the sometimes unfortunate situations 
they are faced with, intervening actively, mainly when their life or 
developmental opportunities are seriously endangered. I mean, every 
social worker would have intervened earlier. But is this DD's 
function?


Orna -  just thinking aloud,  not dead-sure.












From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 21:37:49 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkpd8r+v5lg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051108213749.74022.qmail@web34914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142682



Christina wrote:
"He says polite words, but there's a definite edge.  He doesn't use a sarcastic tone, but that seems to be his intent.  He might do some polite *things*, but he doesn't mean them in a polite way.  And plenty of what he does is not at all polite, IMO, including offering the Dursleys drinks (particularly since he uses magic to do so)." <snip a lot>


 

CH3ed now:

I agree with Alla's and Christina' take that Dumbledore was being politely disrespectful of the Dursley. Dumbledore has a way of chastising you in such a polite and logically sound manner that it is hard to justify retorting anything back at him (like when he testified for Harry at the Wizengamot, for example). I wonder if Dumbledore was less restraint in HBP because he knew his days are numbered. His right hand was dead from start of the book to finish. It seems to me DD was aware that he would die soon so he couldn't afford to be as patient as usual.

 

CH3ed laid off his computer for 30 hours and came back to find 90 unread posts!!! I am delighted to be in such a productive company!




		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov  8 21:35:17 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:35:17 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dkr3e3+ndc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr5ml+7pgp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142683

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
>
> We all know that the plot of Book 7 will require Harry (presumably
> with some help) to find and destroy four Horcruxes (locket, cup,
> Nagini, and something from Ravenclaw) and, ultimately, to confront 
and
> defeat Voldemort. Most of us assume that Snape will perform some
> crucial role and that Pettigrew's silver hand will come into play.
> 
> But what about the other (not so minor) characters, especially Ron 
and
> Hermione? What will Hermione do if she doesn't have the Hogwarts
> library at hand to do her research? And what about Ron's skills at
> chess, and for that matter, his fear of spiders? (I'm
> oversimplifying--of course there's more to the two characters than
> these few traits.)



Excellent questions.  In point of fact, how much time can be spent 
even with MAJOR plotlines?  As you say, we have four horcruxes, and 
JKR has said that the path to destroying them will be "twisting" 
and "difficult."  That seems to mean a significant portion of the 
book will be spent on this quest.  We know that Ron/Hermione has to 
get off the ground, the Harry/Ginny will continue (come on, who 
REALLY believes it's over?) and that the final confrontations with 
Voldemort and Snape will have to take place.  We also know that the 
last chapter is a postscript and that Umbridge (and thus presumably 
the Ministry) has a role to play.

Put all that together, and let's assume (for the sake of assumption) 
she wants to keep the book no longer than HBP.  That doesn't leave 
very much room for many secondary characters or story-arcs, and it 
doesn't leave a great deal of room for the primary ones.  One of the 
strongest and most widespread criticisms of HBP was that it was 
extremely rushed and parts of it seemed to be a "paint-by-numbers" 
exercise, yet there was not nearly so much happening as will have 
to, at a minimum, happen in the last book.

To continue with specifically answering the question, though, I 
think we will have to have, besides all the above: 1) a final scene 
with the Dursleys, 2) at least a brief look at Bill's wedding, 3) 
some end to the Pettigrew character arc, 4) some end to the Draco 
character arc, 5) some explanation of what is or is not going on at 
Hogwarts, 6) the end of Bellatrix, 7) some mention of what happened 
to Fawkes, 8) clearing up the last mysteries about James and Lily.  
Even if a lot of these things are handled in a very perfunctory way, 
that's still a lot.

I would certainly like to see an end to Percy's arc, but JKR may 
have done all with that character she plans to do.  Ditto with 
Neville and Luna and Lupin and Tonks.

I tend to agree with Steve on this one.  JKR has set herself an 
enormous task, and it's going to be very difficult to pull off.  
We've had two books that consisted in large part of wheel-spinning.  
The fact is that the crucial plot points out of OOTP and HBP could 
easily have been included in one book the size of PoA.  Many of us, 
prompted by JKR's remarks, had hoped that after being mired down for 
700 poorly-written pages in OOTP she would take the opportunity in 
HBP to tie off some plot lines, but very few of them in fact came to 
a close.  Now she will either have a brilliant masterpiece 
(altogether unlikely considering her dismal performance beginning at 
the very end of GoF) or an enormous dud with all the gripping 
writing of OOTP and the fascinating characterization of HBP 
(altogether likely, unfortunately, but one can always hope against 
hope).


Lupinlore











From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Tue Nov  8 21:49:46 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:49:46 -0000
Subject: Snaps's hair (Was: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. )
In-Reply-To: <dkp0bj+1r96@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr6hq+meae@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142684

> 
> Carol responds:
(snipped)
 It's as if the casting and makeup designers had read "Spinner's 
> End," seeing Snape without Harry's perspective uglifying him. (The 
> costume designers messed up on the tight sleeves and knee-length 
> coat in place
> of floor-length robes with wider sleeves, though. Movie!Snape 
looks as
> if he should be called upon to deliver a sermon.)
> 
> Regarding Sirius Black (whom I am not swooning over, sorry, Sirius
> fans). I think he has long, matted hair in PoA simply because he's
> been in Azkaban, and logically he should have a long, matted beard 
to
> go with it. Clearly the Dementors weren't passing out tooth paste,
> shampoo, and shaving cream, and they certainly didn't come around 
with
> hair-cutting or shaving spells. (They should have had wizard
> assistants to do the job since Dementors are blind and don't use
> wands.) Exactly how he comes by a shorter haircut when he's still 
on
> the run in GoF and still doesn't own a wand is a bit of a mystery.
> 

Lucianam responds (W.A.F.FL.E.S. is fun!!!!):
Oh, but I'm sure there were billowing robes in some scenes. I 
certainly had the impression robes billowed mightily in the werewolf 
class scene in PoA! The one in which Snape enters the classroom in a 
bad mood, banging the windows shut! And the first Potions Class in 
PS/SS? Well, maybe it's Rickman's acting that's making me see 
things...

About Sirius having a shorter haircut in GoF, he had just arrived 
from the tropics. I guess the first thing he did in the hot hot 
tropics was get rid off all the hair (facial too). I know he was on 
the run but maybe folks don't read that many papers in the beach, at 
least I don't.

* pauses to picture mental image of Sirius in beach, surrounded by 
native girls shaving him with a sharp shell - very Robinson Crusoe *

I guess his hair grew again as soon as he got back in Britain and 
had to live in a cave.

Lucianam







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 21:55:33 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:55:33 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkr3nh+81k7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr6sl+a15h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142685

Lupinlore wrote:
><snip> 
> The one situation has absolutely, utterly, and unquestionably 
> NOTHING to do with the other.  Snape is a cruel and sadistic man who 
> I expect to be severely and specifically punished for his behavior 
> in the last book, or else JKR is a very bad writer indeed who has 
> absolutely no ability to craft a well-written and satisfying story.  
> The Dursleys are cruel and sadistic people who have experienced the 
> beginning of severe punishment that I expect to continue into the 
> seventh book or, as I say, JKR has no idea how to craft a well-
> written and satisfying story.  
> 
> Rather simple, when you get down to it.


Carol responds:
So if JKR, whom we know to be a Christian (and who has shown
Dumbledore extending mercy to Draco and Harry preventing Black and
Lupin from seeking vengeance) chooses Christian forgiveness ("and
forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against
us") over punishing characters for insensitivity or sarcasm, she's a
bad writer with no idea how to craft a well-written and satisfying
story? I'd say, rather, that she has no intention of satisfying
readers who thirst for vengeance, and that craftsmanship has nothing
to do with the moral values implicit in a story.

I'm perennially astounded by readers who see either the Dursleys' or
Snape's treatment of Harry as worse than Bellatrix's Crucios or
Umbridge's blood-drawing detentions. If we're wishing for vengeance,
it should be against the truly evil characters, not against a
magic-fearing family or a teacher who hasn't been taught that sarcasm
is not a method approved by modern Muggle teacher colleges.

At any rate, surely your personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
the fate of certain characters is not an index of her writing ability.
I think that if she resolves the main plot and the primary subplots
without violating the laws of the Potterverse and maintains thematic
consistency (as well as providing the excitement and suspense most of
us are looking for) that she will have done all that is required for
craftsmanship and a well-written story (assuming that the editors have
also done their jobs in trimming stylistic infelicities).

Satisfying to you and satisfying to other readers are not necessarily
the same. I, for one, will be disappointed if Harry or any other
character takes revenge on Snape, and I don't want the Dursleys, for
all their faults, to be killed or Crucio'd by Voldemort. What good did
it do fat Dudley to grow a pig's tail or a "ton tongue"? None
whatever? Nor did they learn the lesson in manners that DD tried to
teach them. You can't squash the anti-Wizard prejudice out of them by
punishing them any more than they could squash the magic out of Harry.

As for Snape, what matters is surely where his loyalties lie and why
he killed DD on the tower and whether he feels remorse and what role
he will play in the battle against Voldemort. Any sarcasm or
unfairness toward Harry is not only in the past but minor in the
extreme compared with murder, mayhem, and war in the WW--all of which,
IMO, Snape has been trying throughout the books to prepare Harry to
face. Perhaps he was mistaken in his methods, but it's his motives
that matter.

I'll be *unhappy* if Snape turns out to be ESE! or some other outcome
that doesn't fit my hopes and expectations, but I won't label my own
unmet expectations as "poor craftsmanship." 

Carol, who will consider the book poorly crafted only if it's loosely
constructed or predictable or doesn't follow logically from the
preceding books






From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 22:00:13 2005
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:00:13 -0000
Subject: Snape's iPod (now WAFFLING)
In-Reply-To: <dkr1of+hjv6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr75d+vin3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142686

"lealess wrote"
> Here's a site that lists albums by the year they came out:
> http://www.oldielyrics.com/years.html
> 
> For 1975, I vote for Bob Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks", created in 
the
> disappointment of a broken marriage.  Dylan can hold his own with
> Snape in terms of snarky personality any day.
> 
Lyra:
Well, I've always thought Dylan would be Snape's taste, so I'm glad 
I'm not alone on that. It's a combination of the angst and/or anger 
you can find in many Dylan songs and the use of language that struck 
me as very much up Snape's alley. (is Blood on the Tracks the one 
with "Idiot Wind"? Now there's a song Snape would love -- Dylan 
practically spits it out it's so full of anger.)








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 22:07:41 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:07:41 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkpbr8+nkl7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr7jd+j3ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142687

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > I do think think this shows that Dumbledore could not have      
> > bullied the Dursleys into treating Harry better.  If he'd done  
> > something similar when Harry was young, I think Harry would have 
> > been on a street corner as soon as Dumbledore left Privet Drive 
> > and the Dursleys would have had their bags packed and plane     
> > tickets for parts unknown in their pockets.  Because the         
> > Dursleys *were* terrified, and yet they still refused to drink  
> > the mead.

> >>Lupinlore: 
> Hmmm.  I'm not at all sure it shows any such thing.  Dumbledore    
> was engaging in what amounts to a parlor trick, and I'm not sure I 
> would agree that the the Dursleys were terrified.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
To my mind, the fact that Vernon didn't force (or try, anyway) 
Dumbledore to leave, that Dudley didn't try to flee the room, that 
once thrown onto the couch (and they were rather violently knocked 
onto the couch) they didn't try and stand up, suggests that they 
were quite terrified.  Terrified into submission, as it were.  To a 
point.

The fact that they *still* had the wherewithal to refuse to drink 
the mead suggests that there is a rather fixed spine within them (or 
maybe a certain level of opstinance).  They will only go so far, but 
after that, they stop.  If Dumbleodore had overtly threatened any of 
the Dursleys, I think they'd have once again refused to drink the 
mead.  Harry would be out, and they'd flee.

> >>Valky:
> <snip>
> We simply do know he [Dumbledore] was not malicious for a start,   
> his intentions were entirely above board. I honestly think the     
> Dursleys knew that as well as we do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Do we?  I thought Dumbledore was being rather deliberately rude with 
the Dursleys in this scene.  (I'm still confused about what book of 
etiquette says the polite thing to do if someone refuses a drink is 
to knock them repeatedly over the head.) 

Dumbledore, actually acts very much like a mob boss in this scene, I 
think.  He takes special notice of the most vulnerable of the 
Dursleys (Dudley) he pulls a weapon when Vernon starts to assert 
himself and forces the Dursleys into a submissive position, and then 
he treats them to continual physical humiliation.  That he does so 
with a quiet voice and a sweet smile would only increase the fear 
for the Dursleys, IMO.  (A "strictly business" sort of thing.)

Again, in some ways the Dursleys have been asking for it for a long 
while now.  But, as per usual with JKR, she takes it about two steps 
too far for me.  And what should have been enjoyable farce becomes 
slightly uncomfortable for me to watch.  What's difficult for me to 
decide is if JKR *means* for me to be uncomfortable or if she really 
does subscribe to the "beat them 'til they bleed" school of 
thought.  It's the same problem I have with the twins, the treatment 
of Draco, etc.

Betsy Hp






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 22:14:48 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:14:48 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?/ Vengeance against characters
In-Reply-To: <dkr6sl+a15h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr80o+ihof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142688

> Carol responds:
<snip>
> I'm perennially astounded by readers who see either the Dursleys' or
> Snape's treatment of Harry as worse than Bellatrix's Crucios or
> Umbridge's blood-drawing detentions. If we're wishing for vengeance,
> it should be against the truly evil characters, not against a
> magic-fearing family or a teacher who hasn't been taught that 
sarcasm
> is not a method approved by modern Muggle teacher colleges.

Alla:

To me they are all evil in a different ways. Voldemort and Bella - 
large scale evil , Snape  and Dursleys are everyday evil, but who can 
damage the person just as much or even more than large scale evil, 
because really IMO in RL we are much more likely encounter everyday 
evils than Voldemort like. I mean those happen too of course, but 
usually during the time of war, IMO. Oh, and I am talking on the 
assumption that Snape is not ESE of course, because if he is, he 
belongs right there with Voldemort.

As to Dursleys - erm...  the characters at the hands of whose Harry 
suffered nothing but neglect and cruelty per Dumbledore words. Yes, 
to me they are evil somewhere in between Snape and Voldemort.

There is a great quote in chapter 3, which Sherry brought up few days 
earlier :

"Harry ran down the stairs two at a time, coming to an abrupt halt 
several steps from the bottom, as long experience had taught him to 
remain out of arm's reach of his uncle whenever possible" - p.45.

If this is not a hint that Harry suffered physical abuse from Vernon 
as well, I don't know what is, personally.

I consider what they did to Harry  to be unforgiveable even without 
this quote, but surely if we add physical abuse to the package, they 
deserve all the punishment and much more, no?


Carol: 
> At any rate, surely your personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction 
with
> the fate of certain characters is not an index of her writing 
ability.

Alla:

Well, this I have to agree with.


Carol:
I, for one, will be disappointed if Harry or any other
> character takes revenge on Snape, and I don't want the Dursleys, for
> all their faults, to be killed or Crucio'd by Voldemort. What good 
did
> it do fat Dudley to grow a pig's tail or a "ton tongue"? None
> whatever? Nor did they learn the lesson in manners that DD tried to
> teach them. You can't squash the anti-Wizard prejudice out of them 
by
> punishing them any more than they could squash the magic out of 
Harry.

Alla:

Well, I don't want Dursleys to be killed. It will not be emotionally 
satisfying to me, but suffering some more humiliation - yes, I do 
want to see it. Something like DE attacking Privet Drive, Harry 
saving them and Petunia struggling with saying thank you. As to what 
good those incidents did to Dursleys - not much, I would guess, but 
it did a LOT of good to satisfy the readers like me, who wanted to 
see the unequivocal stand on JKR's behalf that she does not exactly 
approve what was done to Harry and we got that for which I am very 
grateful, besides I happen to find some of those scenes funny. :-)




Carol: 
<snip>
Any sarcasm or unfairness toward Harry is not only in the past but 
minor in the extreme compared with murder, mayhem, and war in the WW--
all of which,IMO, Snape has been trying throughout the books to 
prepare Harry to face. Perhaps he was mistaken in his methods, but 
it's his motivesthat matter.

Alla:

I can only reiterate - everyday evil can damage the person in its own 
right and I would LOVE to see Snape punished for that as well. As to 
Snape's motives - I am not sure we know them yet.


JMO,

Alla







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  8 22:24:32 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:24:32 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkr6sl+a15h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004901c5e4b3$321e4290$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142689

Carol responds:
I'm perennially astounded by readers who see either the Dursleys' or
Snape's treatment of Harry as worse than Bellatrix's Crucios or
Umbridge's blood-drawing detentions. If we're wishing for vengeance,
it should be against the truly evil characters, not against a
magic-fearing family or a teacher who hasn't been taught that sarcasm
is not a method approved by modern Muggle teacher colleges.




Sherry now:

i can only speak for me, not for any other person, but as far as I'm
concerned, i haven't forgotten Bella or Umbridge.  However, your comment
about the Dursleys being merely magic fearing Muggles doesn't quite hold up.
Because of this quote from Chapter 3 of HBP.

I can't give you page numbers, because braille pages are different from
print.  However, this is from chapter three, HBP, as Harry is running
downstairs upon Dumbledore's arrival.

"Harry ran down the stairs two at a time, coming to an abrupt halt several
steps from the bottom, as long experience had taught him to remain out of
arm's reach of his uncle whenever possible."


That tells me that Vernon, at least, did a lot more than fear magic.  It
sounds like there was physical abuse of Harry by his uncle.  That doesn't
make him any less evil to me than Bella or Umbridge.

As for Snape, i've said many times, that my anger toward Snape for his
treatment of his students is more on Neville's behalf.  He is ruthlessly
cruel to Neville.  That doesn't make him a prince.  and since i believe he
murdered Dumbledore for his own purposes, whatever they may be--because I
cannot ever accept that deliberately killing one person can have a
legitimate excuse--then, yes, I expect Snape to get his just desserts, as
much as i hope that Bella and Umbridge do as well.

i cannot understand anyone feeling bad for the poor Dursleys, when we have
canon now to show that Harry's uncle has used his hands in some way on his
nephew.  Not only that, we know they made him live in a closet, starved him
and routinely let their spoiled rotten son beat him up.  Yeah, nice guys,
well deserving of kindness and politeness.  Dumbledore was sweet and kind to
them, when you consider what he did next to what Harry has suffered all his
life.  Though i agree that Harry's difficult life has made him strong, that
does not in any way excuse the Dursleys for all they did.  

I am not hoping to see more abuse of the Dursleys, because the less I see of
them the better.  And i do agree with something that you, Carol, said
earlier about the Dursleys being unreal.  I know I'm not quoting you
correctly, but I've deleted that message.  But I remember reading the first
book and thinking that if you'd asked a kid to describe a really horrible
family, the Dursleys are what you would get.  But that rather comic feeling
changed in COS, when Harry was locked in his room with bars on the windows
and starved.  It wasn't funny anymore, and i wish we need never see another
Dursley.


Sherry




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  8 22:41:18 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:41:18 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkpa1l+r8r0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkr9ie+d4lm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142690

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Justin" <downtownnac at y...> 
wrote:
>
> No doubt, the current consensus is that RAB is Regulus Black. 

Goddlefrood:

Perhaps it is, but certainly not with me and many others on this 
site.

The Leaky Cauldron quickly retracted its assertion that R.A.B. was 
Regulus Black.

For further exposition I further you to a post of mine (#142202) 
entitled R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? in which I set out reasons 
as to why Mrs. Black could be R.A.B.

Your speculation regarding Filch has one quite large flaw. It is 
that during the time when Tom Riddle was a student Filch was not the 
caretaker. We are led to believe that very few people know Tom 
Riddle and I would concede that the other people mentioned are aware 
of the link between LV and Tom Riddle.

I do not, however, concede that Filch knew of his identity and in 
that circumstance your theory must falter.

Goddlefrood still with the conviction that Sirius's dear old mum 
will be R.A.B.






From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Tue Nov  8 23:37:31 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:37:31 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkr277+53i2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkrcrr+e7h0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142691

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apollo414j" <apollo414j at y...>
wrote:

> Apollo414j:
> Definitely. I think it's important to note that Rowling writes a 
> great deal of her books based on ideas of misdirection and guiding 
> people in the wrong direction. 

  This is often true. However, the main reason that I believe R.A.B to
be Regulus, is that Hermione didnt think of it. If Hermione had come
back from the library and listed Regulus as a possibility, I would
probably not believe it. Hermione nor anyone else in the trio even
thought of Regulus, which I think is odd unless JKR didn't want to
give it away just yet. I also believe that the identity of R.A.B will
not be the big mystery. The big questions will be: is he indeed dead,
how well did he know L.V, how did he find out for sure about horcruxes
years before D.D, and did he indeed destroy the locket? I believe
that, that is quite enough to be going on with. 







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 00:00:56 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:56 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkr7jd+j3ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkre7o+5hbp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142692


> Jen: 
<snip>
>I 
> won't be convinced Petunia didn't invite the WW into her home. 
> 
> Otherwise it simply doesn't fit! We have no motive for Petunia to 
> make this extraordinary move, no love for Lily or Harry or because 
> she wishes the best for the magical world, lol. The only halfway 
> decent motive we used to have was fear, yet Vernon and Petunia 
were 
> not at all fearful to raise Harry as an invisible & unwanted son, 
> withold his heritage and family information from him, and attempt 
to 
> keep him from attending Hogwarts.

a_svirn:

Personally I suspect that the melancholy truth is that Dumbledore 
did bully the Dursleys into adopting Harry, even though he couldn't 
*make* them to love him. What else does his little speech about 
Harry's being "unwelcome" and the Dursleys taking him "grudgingly" 
mean? Why would you "grudgingly" agree to raise other people's 
child? There are only three possibilities: either you stand to gain, 
or to loose or both. I don't see what the Dursleys got in the way of 
carrots. They are unaware of Harry's fortune, and their way of life 
has not changed noticeably since the Halloween 1981. As for sticks 
we don't have to overtax our imagination: we've seen enough of them. 
Fear might be only a "halfway decent" factor, but I believe it was 
enough for the Dursleys. 

> > >>Valky:
> > <snip>
> > We simply do know he [Dumbledore] was not malicious for a 
start,   
> > his intentions were entirely above board. I honestly think 
the     
> > Dursleys knew that as well as we do.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Do we?  I thought Dumbledore was being rather deliberately rude 
with 
> the Dursleys in this scene.  (I'm still confused about what book 
of 
> etiquette says the polite thing to do if someone refuses a drink 
is 
> to knock them repeatedly over the head.)

a_svirn:

You and me both. Too bad Valky doesn't want to reveal her sources...


>Valky:
>After introducing himself Dumbledore pauses and waits for the 
>Dursleys
>to say their piece. They can make their excuses here, but 
>Dumbledore
>knows he has pressed his advantage on their hospitality now to the
>point where they wouldn't feel it was acceptable to make excuses. 
>Yes,
>it's not a gesture brimming with kindness, but it's acceptable
>etiquette, really it is.

a_svirn:

I hope you are not going to put it to the test. Because, you know, a 
host is within his rights to boot out any guest that overstays his 
welcome. Much less, "presses the advantage on his hospitality". It 
would be quite in keeping with any known social code of behavior. 
Consult Debrett's Guide on Etiquettes if you don't believe me.

>Orna:
>I think there is some complex interplay between cold and sometimes
>amused manipulation, magic, and sincere talking. And I'm not able 
>to
>locate the key to when he chooses which. <snip>
>I mean, every
>social worker would have intervened earlier. But is this DD's
>function?

a_svirn
Well, what is his function? It's not like he has any right on Harry 
at all. He's neither his blood relation, nor guardian. In the year 
1981 he's not even his headmaster. 







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 00:08:11 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:08:11 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?/ Vengeance against characters
In-Reply-To: <dkr80o+ihof@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkrelb+8g6s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142693

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> To me they are all evil in a different ways. Voldemort and Bella - 
> large scale evil, Snape and Dursleys are everyday evil, but who 
> can damage the person just as much or even more than large scale 
> evil, because really IMO in RL we are much more likely encounter 
> everyday evils than Voldemort like. I mean those happen too of 
> course, but usually during the time of war, IMO. Oh, and I am 
> talking on the assumption that Snape is not ESE of course, because 
> if he is, he belongs right there with Voldemort.

I thought this was pretty clear from OotP, but it's become even more 
of a theme in HBP, I think.  I was a little surprised in OotP when 
the animosity between Snape and Harry, which went unlanced, exploded 
into something that ended up having very stark consequences.  One 
major contributing factor to the situation at the end of the book is 
that Harry didn't trust Snape--he forgot of him as a member of the 
Order.  But that's just what *happens* when you get daily 
discriminatory treatment with no good explanation (and by that I mean 
something made forthright, someone actually bothering to make it 
clear instead of just saying "Do it!").  People don't trust other 
people who they have such poor connections with, generally.

Speaking of trust, I'm awfully amused that Darrin's prediction back 
in 69631 has an awfully good chance of being ultimately correct:

> You know what make distrust Snape even more? Not Harry's hate, but
> Hermione and Dumbledore's continual insistence that he is to be
> trusted.
> It really is a "sheesh, why are you protesting so damn much?" vibe
> I'm getting.
> I mean, we're setting up Hermione as this insightful oracle and
> Dumbledore is the Basil Exposition of the series and they keep
> insisting on Snape's good?
> Talk about Bangy.

If JKR is telling a story of the Ordinary Vices as well as of grand-
scale metaphysical Evil, then we should pay as much attention to the 
consistent patterns of ill behavior characters evince.  Things add 
up.  Voldemort probably couldn't have done what he did without the 
implicit cooperation of the attitudes of much of wizarding society.  
Smaller evils than larger ones, but so important in how people relate 
to each other.

> Carol:
> Any sarcasm or unfairness toward Harry is not only in the past but 
> minor in the extreme compared with murder, mayhem, and war in the 
> WW--all of which,IMO, Snape has been trying throughout the books to 
> prepare Harry to face. Perhaps he was mistaken in his methods, but 
> it's his motives that matter.

Oh, 'any means to achieve his ends?'  I'm wary of that, very wary.  
How does that fit in with your (IIRC) argument that there are methods 
Harry must eschew even in his quest to rid to world of Voldemort?  Is 
it that oh, Snape's methods aren't *that* bad so they don't matter, 
but Harry has to remain clean?  

Snape's motives are obfuscated at the present, but I do agree that a 
good deal of importance and meaning rests on them--so we're all left 
unsure.  I'm trying to think, though, about cases where we have a 
character actually doing good through profoundly flawed means.  We 
have Dumbledore and Harry at the Dursleys, but even that's a little 
different, because that's more a sin of omission than commission.  
Agency seems to be important for fault to accrue (which is why 
the 'it wasn't actually an AK' is so important to keeping Snape 
clean, isn't it?).

I think JKR believes in a kind of Schadenfreude.  She likes to show 
the bad receiving their comeuppance.  Even if she does complicate 
things as well, I think that fundamental property remains, and is 
hard to get around (if you want to retain coherency).

-Nora sings along: CEOs getting shackled... (and doesn't particularly 
weep for the Dursleys, either)






From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 00:16:38 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:16:38 EST
Subject: Etiquette Shmetiquette (was Re: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?)
Message-ID: <214.dab067e.30a299e6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142694


lealess wrote:
I agree that the Dursleys are bullies.  Did Dumbledore change  that
during his visit?  No.  All he did was frighten them and get  his petty
digs in.  Did he change years of abuse?  Did he even  explain how they
abused Dudley?  No.  All he did was give a  vicarious thrill to readers
eager for the Dursleys to be  punished.
 
Julie:
I'm thinking he expected the Dursleys to figure it out (how they  abuse
Dudley). Granted, they aren't exactly brilliant, but they must be  able
to reasont that one out! And while real threats might have forced  the
Dursleys to act differently toward Harry, it wouldn't make them feel 
differently, simply more hateful and resentful. Any physical abuse to
Harry was quite mild (going to bed hungry, living in a closet)  compared
to the emotional abuse of knowing he's not at all loved there (we  know
now from Harry's outburst on the subject that this is the thing that  truly
hurt him). And DD can do absolutely nothing to change that fact. He
can only point out his displeasure and make sure the Dursleys fully
understand it.  

lealess:
The Dursleys, or at least Petunia, were frightened of  involvement with
wizards, for good reason (Lily and James), and Petunia's  fear made the
family violently reactive to any hint of magic.  I'm not  excusing the
Dursleys at all.  But they are understandable.  Look  at the numbers of
people who turn their backs on neighbors in distress  because they
don't want to be exposed to risk.  For that matter, look at  the
parents who sell their children into slavery today.  It  isn't
uncommon, unfortunately.  So, the Dursleys are selfish hypocrites.  
But they are not the worst thing that could have happened to Harry in
the  Muggle world.
 
Julie:
I completely agree with you. This same principle applies in  discussions
about Snape's abuse of students as well. It's a matter of degree. The
Dursleys aren't the worst thing by far that could have befallen Harry. 
He could have been locked in that closet *all* the time, with no  school,
no socialization, etc--something also not that uncommonly done to  kids.
Add in sexual abuse, child pornography, broken bones, deliberate  burns,
etc, etc, and there is a litany of really nasty abuse the Dursleys  could
have inflicted on Harry, but didn't. Like most people they do have an 
ethical line, one that needs adjusting certainly, but it is there. 
 
Do you feel the same way about Snape, BTW? As a teacher he is
certainly no shining example. But his level of abuse is quite mild,  even
when it involves Neville or Harry. And even more than the Dursleys, 
Snape has his own ethical line when dealing with students. He'll 
verbally harass them, even deliberately frighten them, but he won't
physically harm them (except shoving Harry away, which was an
emotional reaction, not an intentional act meant to harm). 


lealess:
Let's examine Dumbledore's behavior.  He realizes Harry  didn't tell
the Dursleys he'd be around, yet steps into the house as if it  was all
fixed.  He interrupts Vernon with mild scolding right  away.  He
abruptly slings the family onto a sofa.  He chides them  for not
offering him drinks, as if they invited him there in the first  place.
He offers them a magical drink, which Harry imbibes, but... Harry  is
a wizard and they are wary of magic (and have you ever had mead  --
yuck).  He forces glasses of this liquor on them, without even  asking
if they want it.  Then he calls his little, hyperactive friend  over
(Kreacher), without a by your leave.  Finally, he tells them  the
protection they have had for fifteen years will end in a year, oh,  but
would they shelter the one exposing them to danger for another  year,
anyway?  Way to go, Dumbledore; you really made a stride forward  for
wizard-Muggle understanding.

If you are saying that Dumbledore  wasn't rude, or arrogant, or just
plain creepy, I don't buy it.  If you  are saying he was out for some
sort of weird but pointless revenge, that  seems more likely.
 
Julie:
I think Dumbledore *was* rude and arrogant. On purpose even ;-) I  also
think he deliberately parodied the social graces on purpose. It was
his way of saying "Here's what you think is important, so I'll do lip
service to it. And now here's what I deem important (your  reprehensible
treatment of Harry over the past 15 years)."
 
BTW, I also question whether Harry's presence is exposing the  Dursleys
to danger. I think Harry's *existence* exposes them to danger,  because
they are his only remaining relatives. And part of Dumbledore's  contract
with Petunia was that Harry's protection was the Dursley's protection.  If
they didn't take in Harry, they wouldn't be protected--and no matter  how
much they might protest that Harry meant nothing to them and they
didn't know where he was, would the Death Eaters or later Voldemort
believe that protest? Or bypass the chance to hex or torture the  Dursleys
even if they did? Without Harry present, they might well have been  doomed.
 
Petunia's occasional fearful reactions seem to support this theory.  She
also knows a lot about Dark Magic, and creatures like Dementors. She
knows her family is in danger simply because of her relationship to  Lily
and Harry. Dumbledore can't change that. And maybe he could have
hidden them in the Wizard Protection Program, but why should he help
them if they won't help Petunia's only nephew?

lealess:
If the Dumbledore of HBP was the same one we've known all  along, then
he was a surprise to me.  If there was something wrong with  him, some
dark magic working within him, some pressing deadline he was  facing,
some means by which he was exhausting himself, then his behavior  would
make a lot more sense.
 
Julie:
I think there was a pressing deadline Dumbledore was facing--his  death. 
It's time to wrap up all the loose ends, including educating Harry  about
Voldemort's past and the horcruxes, returning Snape to Voldemort's
camp, and making sure the Dursley's understand his  displeasure over
their treatment of Harry. 


lealess:
He had his little joke with the glasses, and some readers got  the joy
of seeing the Dursleys bullied, i.e., terrified by one of  superior
power to satisfy the psychological needs of the superior one.   But if
Dumbledore was in my house, I would have considered him rude, told  him
I really wasn't expecting him, and asked him to leave.   This
Dumbledore would come in anyway and lectured or laughed at me,  after
throwing me on a sofa and forcing a drink on me.  He was not a  polite
man.
 
Julie:
I enjoyed seeing them get a little minor comeuppance, because 
they deserved it. And while they might have been terrified and  bullied
by Dumbledore's superior power, so they have bullied Harry with their 
superior power as his guardians. What goes around, comes around ;-)
The Dursley's politeness is all veneer, a cover for their boorishness
beneath. Dumbledore knows that, which is why in this situation all
I can say is, etiquette shmetiquette. You go, Dumbledore!
 

lealess:
As for Harry's nervousness, I think that was a combination  of his
realization that Dumbledore enjoyed toying with the Dursleys,  combined
with his usual eagerness to leave that house.
 
Julie:
Harry has a sneaking suspicion Dumbledore is enjoying himself, but
I didn't get any vibe that he was nervous about Dumbledore toying with 
the Dursleys (i.e., that he feared Dumbledore might do something 
objectionable to them). But no kid wants to be around when adults 
are in conflict, they'd rather be long gone. And Harry's always eager 
to be long gone from the Dursleys anyway. 

Julie 

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  9 00:27:17 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:27:17 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkqjvr+cho2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkrfp5+r9jb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142696

 
> > Valky:
> > I am under the impression that had Petunia refused with absolute
> > certainty other arrangements would be made for Harry. If that were
> > to happen though it would be highly dangerous for everyone so I
> > assume a lot of Dumbeldore's forebearance was because he didn't
> > want to force that upon them.
> 
> Jen: I hope getting more information on why Petunia agreed to take 
> Harry in the first place(and the WW intrusions as part of the 
> package) will more fully explain both the Howler and Dumbledore's 
> visit. The new light cast on these events could make Dumbledore's 
> visit more ominous, i.e. we discover he more or less forced Petunia 
> to take Harry and used fear as a weapon, or it could explain why he 
> felt the right to impose on the Dursleys, if Petunia agreed in 
> exchange for something she valued.
> 
> Valky went on to say later in her post: "The whole thing hints to me 
> that it suited Petunia no less, but I could be wrong" and this 
> echoes my thoughts. Until we know what was in the letter left on the 
> doorstep and the letters Dumbledore sent *only* to Petunia prior, I 
> won't be convinced Petunia didn't invite the WW into her home. 
> 
> Otherwise it simply doesn't fit! We have no motive for Petunia to 
> make this extraordinary move, no love for Lily or Harry or because 
> she wishes the best for the magical world, lol. The only halfway 
> decent motive we used to have was fear, yet Vernon and Petunia were 
> not at all fearful to raise Harry as an invisible & unwanted son, 
> withold his heritage and family information from him, and attempt to 
> keep him from attending Hogwarts. They did not follow the wishes 
> Dumbledore spelled out in the letter at ALL and suffered no 
> repurcussions. Fear as a motive weakened considerably for me after 
> HBP.
> 
> Jen, trying to decide if Petunia took Harry in to protect the ones 
> she does love, or because Dumbledore offered her magical cleaning 
> skills in return. ;)
>

Valky again:
I'd love to expound on these thoughts Jen! Thanks! <g>

What I think I am seeing as per Petunia's rant about *P*(spit)erfect
Lily in Philosophers stone, her recollection of wizard things, what I
see as strong hints that Vernon harbours the most anti-magic sentiment
*for* his family while his wife and son seem just to follow suit, plus
the things that you mention above Jen - is that Petunia has secreted
inside herself a hidden desire to be part of the WW all her life. 

Just speculatively I am imagining Petunia as a young girl with a
*special* sister, using my own feelings I am getting the sense that as
a girl Petunia might have been fascinated and even mildy enamoured of
the secret special society Lily belonged to. I think every girl has
the 'princess dream' when they are young, right? The Wizard World is
shrouded in mystery and intrigue, it wouldn't be strange, I'd think,
to discover that Petunia had once romanticised the Wizard World and
hoped deep down for her little part in it to come someday.

If this was the case, then it follows that taking Harry in offers
Petunia a dream come true in itself. Her own little secret to keep,
just like Lily had, a letter from the little secret world that she is
connected to, again like Lily. Although she is older now and outwardly
she presents her very diginified Muggle persona, could it be so
unusual that inside her little princess persona doesn't want her to
let go of her fantasy. 

Although this is where my thoughts are heading, I honestly wouldn't
find it surprising if Dumbledore gave her the key to a little magic of
her own into the bargain. I am sure that everything that keeps
Petunia's dream of being a part of the magic world alive would be
valuable to her, but I think that the most important thing of all
would be her secret admiration for Lily and the world Lily belonged to. 

I think this simplifies nicely the questions that are on both our
minds. Why did Petunia take Harry in, what is her personal connection
to the magic world, and what explains both these things while keeping
the visit in HBP and the Howler readable at face value? It takes us
back to the original theories we had before it was all complicated by
the OOtP Howler that Petunia was just a little jealous of Lily and
that she likes the notion of a magical world just a little more than
she lets on.

Valky







From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 00:35:08 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:35:08 EST
Subject: What's in a Name? (CHAPDISC - Spinner's End)
Message-ID: <1a4.43941b7e.30a29e3c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142697

 


Goddlefrood wrote:
> There is some evidence to support it;  why then did Snape 
> call Lily a mudblood? This is after all one of the  worst insults in 
> the wizarding world. Even for a broken-hearted  teenager it seems 
> rather extreme to throw this loathsome insult, that  is assuming that 
> Snape already had some infatuation with Lily prior to  the incident 
> experienced in the Pensieve.

Bart:
Snape had  been humiliated by a spell that he, himself had invented, and 
was 15. And  was treated as an object of pity by a girl who he may have 
already formed  strong feelings.
 
Julie:
What's in a name is the power to hurt someone.  And  as you say, Bart,
Snape was deeply humiliated, perhaps in front of a girl whom he  secretly
liked. It's likely he saw Lily's support as nothing more  than pity, which 
would intensify his humiliation, and induce him to  strike back at her. No 
strike could be sharper than calling her the foulest name he could  muster,
thus hurting her as she has (unintentionally) hurt him. And, make no 
mistake, teenagers know exactly what hurts the most, and will use it, 
often without thought, when cornered. 
 
The idea that Snape called Lily "mudblood" because of inborn  prejudice
seems especially odd now that we know he isn't a pureblood, and later
called himself by a title that emphasized that fact (Half-Blood Prince). 
And if this really is his worst memory, then the insult shouted out of 
impulsive anger and humiliation, which he can't take  back once his 
anger subsides even if he dearly wishes he could, makes sense.  
 
Julie 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  9 01:18:52 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:18:52 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkr7jd+j3ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkrips+37qo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142698


> Betsy Hp:
> To my mind, the fact that Vernon didn't force (or try, anyway) 
> Dumbledore to leave, that Dudley didn't try to flee the room, that 
> once thrown onto the couch (and they were rather violently knocked 
> onto the couch) they didn't try and stand up, suggests that they 
> were quite terrified.  Terrified into submission, as it were.  To a 
> point.
> 
> The fact that they *still* had the wherewithal to refuse to drink 
> the mead suggests that there is a rather fixed spine within them (or 
> maybe a certain level of opstinance).  They will only go so far, but 
> after that, they stop.  If Dumbleodore had overtly threatened any of 
> the Dursleys, I think they'd have once again refused to drink the 
> mead.  Harry would be out, and they'd flee.

Valky:
There's obviously no changing your mind on that Betsy. ;D But as you
know I really do not agree that Dumbledore controlled them using
terror. I posted earlier that we are shown Dumbledore's methods of
getting things done several times through the series. In his knowledge
of Slughorn, he establishes that Slughorn will respond to a plea from
Harry, in his knowledge of Cornelius Fudge and the Wizard court he
establishes that they will respond to a certain line of questioning
and it will get the job done. The list goes on, and in every case
Dumbledore anticipates the response and knowingly pushes the button.
If he suddenly changes his whole approach with the Dursleys and
decides to barge in frigtening the pants off them till they submit,
it's news to me. Clearly he decided to do that in philosophers stone
hence why he sent Hagrid to deliver the note, but I am not disputing
that he intended to scare/bully the Dursleys in PS/SS, I am disputing
that he did so in HBP. The fact that Dumbledore went himself to the
Durselys and did follow custom, which I am sure a_svirn can transcript
from the book he mentions, in announcing his arrival properly,
assuming his visit was recieved when no apologies were sent, arriving
with the sharpest possible punctuality, making proper introductions
and small talk - these are all evidence to he approach Dumbledore took
to the Dursleys. You're welcome to disagree, that's your prerogative,
I have given the strongest argument I can to the point that Dumbledore
did not come with a threat to overwhelm them into submission.



> 
> > >>Valky:
> > <snip>
> > We simply do know he [Dumbledore] was not malicious for a start,   
> > his intentions were entirely above board. I honestly think the     
> > Dursleys knew that as well as we do.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Do we?  I thought Dumbledore was being rather deliberately rude with 
> the Dursleys in this scene.  (I'm still confused about what book of 
> etiquette says the polite thing to do if someone refuses a drink is 
> to knock them repeatedly over the head.) 


Valky:
LOL! Of course I won't answer that in the format you suggest, Betsy. <g>

The polite thing to do is politely refuse the drink! Did the Dursleys
look up and say "no thankyou"? Come on what is this Dumbledore beat
up! LOL 

The Dursleys looked down and tried to ignore the drink being offered
Uncle Vernon tried to beat it away and eventually he just screeched
rudely at Dumbledore. 
I see the head banging thing as a kind of silent butler standing
beside them insisting "Your drink Madam.." over and over and getting
NO REPLY! Honestly! Is it Dumbledores fault they couldn't treat him
with any decency and refuse the drink like any polite person would?


> Betsy:
> Dumbledore, actually acts very much like a mob boss in this scene, I 
> think.  He takes special notice of the most vulnerable of the 
> Dursleys (Dudley) he pulls a weapon when Vernon starts to assert 
> himself and forces the Dursleys into a submissive position, and then 
> he treats them to continual physical humiliation.  That he does so 
> with a quiet voice and a sweet smile would only increase the fear 
> for the Dursleys, IMO.  (A "strictly business" sort of thing.)

Valky:
Betsy <beg> I am starting to wonder if you aren't too far into
flipping things over- Draco is really nice and sweet; Dumbledore is
like a mob boss. ROFL. I am sorry I can't give this a dignified
answer, Betsy. As much as I have always fully respected your posts, I
am just laughing too hard right now.


> Betsy:
> Again, in some ways the Dursleys have been asking for it for a long 
> while now.  But, as per usual with JKR, she takes it about two steps 
> too far for me.  And what should have been enjoyable farce becomes 
> slightly uncomfortable for me to watch.  What's difficult for me to 
> decide is if JKR *means* for me to be uncomfortable or if she really 
> does subscribe to the "beat them 'til they bleed" school of 
> thought.  It's the same problem I have with the twins, the treatment 
> of Draco, etc.
>

Valky:
Okay, I am breathing steadily now. I just like to say that in all
honesty I think the beat them till they bleed thing that you're seeing
is pretty subjective. The Dursleys weren't that scared really, maybe
you need to read the passage again with fresh eyes, notice that Vernon
has enough pluck to get greedy eyed at Harry's inheritance from Sirius
and gloat over Sirius' death and that all indications are that
whenever the Dursleys are silent it was by their own choice to say
nothing in moments when they are not terrified but simply trying to
ignore Dumbledore (except for once when Dumbledore silenced them to
say his piece on Harry) otherwise they spoke when they wanted to and
never abashedly. At the end of the visit the descriptions of the
Dursleys are:

Dudley - Frowning
Vernon - Looked like something had stuck in his throat
Petunia - Oddly flushed

I don't see the vaguest *hint* of terrified so where are you getting
it from?

Valky









From rbeache at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  9 02:46:52 2005
From: rbeache at earthlink.net (Rachel Ellington)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:46:52 -0500
Subject: Etiquette
References: <1131424116.3288.91535.m6@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <002301c5e4d7$d7661420$6a01a8c0@IBME69E742C294>

No: HPFGUIDX 142699

I am a day behind on my posts, sorry if this is repetitive.
 a_svirn:
> And did you notice: Harry was not even remotely delighted with this 
> little demonstration. He was anxious to leave. Wonder what he was 
> reminded of. 

Valky said:
Now this I absolutely agree with, but I will have to think on it some
more. My first intuition is that Harry felt disgusted that Dumbledore
afforded the superficial pompness of custom his bother, and maybe he
was reminded of the Dursley's themselves pressing their civility on
others to gain the upper hand. Any other thoughts? 

RE says:
My thought was that the Dursley's inability to feign any sort of mannered behavior highlights the fact that they are racists (towards the WW).  The Dursley's jump through hoops to impress only those they deem important, failing to realize that Dumbledore, although a wizard, is the most "important" person they know.  Their reaction to DD's civility magnifies their ill treatment of Harry, their utter disregard for his nurture, emotions, difficulties, his very life.  Harry already knows intimately what horrid people they are and seeing DD humiliate them in this way must be slightly embarrasing for him-they are as horrible as Harry thinks and DD knows this fact and HAS known this fact all along, yet DD has never stood up to the Dursley's before this for the terrible treatment they have inflicted on Harry.   A day late and a dollar short on DD's part, I would say.  Although, it was rewarding that someone FINALLY told the Dursley's how horrible they are.

a_svirn:
What do you mean "for a change"? We have seen wizards being rude to 
them on Harry's behalf from the book 1.

RE says:
 I don't think this is necessarily true.  Mr. and Mrs. Weasley attempt to do the right things: writing letters asking if he may join them at the Quidditch World Cup, for example.  I think when we see the OotP stealing Harry away at night after tricking the Dursley's, it's not a rudeness to them, but a way to avoid potential trouble.  When the group threatens Uncle Vernon at the end of OOTP, I view this as a coarse way of protecting Harry.  I view the manner in which the Dursley's have treated Harry as very close to psychological abuse or neglect.  They make him live in a cupboard, they lock him in his room and barely feed him, they ignore his birthdays, they treat him like a slave, they tell people he is a juvie. These are not people that should be afforded manners or civility in my opinion.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov  9 02:46:28 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:46:28 -0500
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <dkpr86+motl@eGroups.com>
References: <dkpr86+motl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43716304.6060705@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142700

esmith222002 wrote:
> To conclude, I think that Snape is one of those people who has a 
> massive chip on his shoulder about how his life has panned out. 

Bart:
That reminds me of a belief I had before HBP about Snape's attitude 
towards Harry. Here was this kid who was being hailed as a hero by 
everyone, pretty much for just being in the wrong place at the right 
time, and here was Snape, a genuine hero who risked death, and probably 
worse, time and time again, and was treated with derision and scorn.
Bart






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 03:26:43 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:26:43 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <43716304.6060705@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dkrq9j+7g1c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142701

> esmith222002 wrote:
> > To conclude, I think that Snape is one of those people who has a 
> > massive chip on his shoulder about how his life has panned out. 
> 
> Bart:
> That reminds me of a belief I had before HBP about Snape's attitude 
> towards Harry. Here was this kid who was being hailed as a hero by 
> everyone, pretty much for just being in the wrong place at the right 
> time, and here was Snape, a genuine hero who risked death, and 
probably 
> worse, time and time again, and was treated with derision and scorn.


Alla:

Erm... I think we are into the question of Snape's motivations again. 
IMO there is nothing in the books so far, which tells us with absolute 
certainty that Snape was a hero or is a hero, especially a " genuine" 
hero.

I mean, don't get me wrong , IMO one can interpret SOME of Snape 
actions as being heroic ones, or one can interpret them as actions 
with selfish motivations, ( I am assuming you are talking about Snape 
returning to Dumbledore and spying), but even if we would assume for 
the sake of the argument that Snape did some heroic things,which IS  a 
possibility of course, consider this question.

Woudn't you agree that Snape did what ANY half decent person was 
supposed to do after such person realised that being a member of 
terrorist organization is very very WRONG?

The way I look at it - Snape has a HUGE debt to many people directly 
and indirectly after his "glory days as DE" and IF he is still a 
Dumbledore man (I am not really buying it, but of course I can be 
wrong), he does nothing more but pays his debt to society in general 
and to Harry in particular for playing a part in getting his parents 
killed.

And of course Harry by now faced Voldie several times, so IMO he is a 
genuine hero. :-)

Just my opinion,

Alla






From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 03:43:39 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:43:39 EST
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
Message-ID: <21b.2379ff3.30a2ca6b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142702

 
Carol wrote:

We all know that the plot of Book 7 will require  Harry (presumably
with some help) to find and destroy four Horcruxes (locket,  cup,
Nagini, and something from Ravenclaw) and, ultimately, to confront  and
defeat Voldemort. Most of us assume that Snape will perform  some
crucial role and that Pettigrew's silver hand will come into  play.

 
Julie:
I've been trying to remember other things JKR has mentioned will
be in Book 7. So far I have:
 
1. We'll learn something very important about Lily, which might 
happen in conjunction with Harry's visit to Godric's Hollow.
 
2. Depending on how one interprets that particular interview, JKR
said in regards to Snape that something will happen relating to
a) a redemptive pattern, or b) someone loving him. Or maybe it
will be both. Certainly Snape will have a role to play on several 
fronts. 
 
3. We will find out the importance of Dumbledore's defeat of 
Grindenwald. (Probably relating to the horcruxes)
 
4. We will see the two-way mirror again, and we will see Sirius
again (dead or alive). 
 
5. A character will use magic late in life. (I'm putting this here
because I don't think Merope is that character, though  technically
she could be.)
 
6. We will find out the significance of Voldemort's fetal form in  GoF.
 
7. We will meet an Order member we haven't fully met yet. (Or some
wording like that)
 
And I'm sure there are more. Someone previously mentioned  Umbridge
would appear again (*very* briefly, I hope!). And I assume we'll  get
an explanation of why DD had that gleam in his eye when  Voldemort
took Harry's blood, as well as what really happened on the Tower  in
HBP. 
 
Carol:
But what about the other (not so minor) characters, especially  Ron and
Hermione? What will Hermione do if she doesn't have the  Hogwarts
library at hand to do her research? And what about Ron's skills  at
chess, and for that matter, his fear of spiders?  (I'm
oversimplifying--of course there's more to the two characters  than
these few traits.)
 
Julie:
I still think Harry may return to Hogwarts, at least briefly. And I 
think Ron and Hermoine will still attend their seventh year. I'm 
sure Ginny will attend her sixth year. Either way, they will  have
a solid role to play (Ron's chess skills may well come into it,  as
well as Hermoine's logical abilities). 
 
As for Ron's fear of spiders (just because you mentioned it!), I  think
he's stuck with it. It would be interesting if some event cured him  of
the fear, but that probably won't happen. But it's normal for people 
to retain phobias, and I consider Ron's milder than he may think  (as
he has been able to face it and function when necessary). He'll  just
learn to live with it, and leave Hermoine to do the gardening ;-)

Carol wrote:
I think that Ginny will be the Trio's contact at  Hogwarts via the
two-way mirror (Harry will find Sirius Black's mirror at 12  GP and use
a simple Reparo charm to fix his own). Maybe Hagrid will take care  of
Hedwig, who's too conspicuous for Harry to use as a means  of
communication, so maybe Harry will use his Patronus to communicate
with  Lupin, who (IMO) will need to remain at 12 GP as he can no longer
spy on the  werewolves (his cover is blown--the DEs saw him fighting as
an Order member  at Hogwarts).
 
Julie:
I don't know if I see Ron and Hermoine with Harry the whole time. I 
rather expect Harry to go to Godric's Hollow alone. And he'll no  doubt
fact Voldemort alone at the pivotal moment (if anyone else is present
and helps him, I actually think it will be Snape and/or Wormtail).
 
Good point about Hedwig, and your theory about the two-way mirror
sounds about right. I agree Lupin blew his cover, so I'd assume he'll
be holed up with the Order, or with Tonks ;-) Grimmald Place  seems 
likely. I suspect the two of them will join in a battle against DEs  at
some point though. 


Carol:
And surely the Percy arc will have to be completed. He's not  exactly
reconciled with his family despite having been forgiven (and  hugged)
by his mother. I keep remembering Molly's Boggart in OoP, which  I
think foreshadows the actual as opposed to near death of at least  one
member of the Weasley family. And I don't think it will be  Ginny,
Arthur, or Bill, all of whom have had their turns, or Molly  herself,
who is not part of the Boggart vision. (The fact that Ginny  and
Charlie aren't shown isn't irrelevant, IMO--either they "died"  before
Harry entered or the Boggart hadn't got to them yet.)
 
Julie:
I hope Ginny doesn't die, because Harry's lost enough people he 
loves. I'm not sure Charlie's death would have much impact, since
we've seen him so rarely. I think Percy is the most likely candidate,
as he can die redeeming himself (saving someone in his family). 
 
On a side note, if Percy dies redeeming himself to his family, and
Wormtail dies during repayment of his life debt to Harry (and  there
is absolutely no point to him living), then maybe JKR will avoid 
killing Snape and overdoing the redemption-by-death theme ;-)


Carol:
I'm disappointed, BTW, that all the hands on Molly's clock  are
*already* pointing to mortal peril. What good is that? If one of  her
children is in genuine danger, threatened by a dragon (Charlie)  or
kidnapped from their Diagon Alley shop by DEs (the Twins), how will
she  know that their "peril" is more "mortal" than that of the rest of
the family  sitting in relative safety in the Burrow?
 
Julie:
I hadn't thought of it that way. I just assumed they're all in mortal
peril because of Voldemort's return and their obvious loyalties. I
wonder if there is another indicator on the  clock, maybe "Mortal
Peril--Really, We Mean It This Time!" Or maybe the Mortal Peril 
starts flashing red if a family member is facing impeding death.


Carol:
So, what side plots (aside from Snape and RAB, which have  been
thoroughly discussed) really, really need to be resolved and what  role
will the sidekicks, subordinate heroes, and other minor  characters
(Luna, Neville, Dobby, Percy, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, Slughorn . . .  . )
play in resolving them? (Well, okay, we can include Snape here  in
relation to future actions as opposed to past motivations and  events.)
 
Julie:
I don't know that JKR has to take a lot of time to resolve some of
the plots. It could take just a page or two to give Umbridge her just
desserts, for instance ;-) I do hope to see the DA club resurrected
at Hogwarts, perhaps as a way of assisting Harry in his quest. If
Bill becomes the DADA teacher, he could also have a hand in that 
resurrection. And that would give Neville, Luna, and some others
a role to play and some final development. 
 
If there is a subplot along side Harry's quest for the Horcruxes, I  do
think it will be Hogwarts under attack. This gives another  opportunity
for the DA club to be addressed, as well as Hogwarts unity (we must
all hang together, or assuredly we will hang--er, be  AKed--separately).


Carol:
What themes other than choice and Love and where Snape's  loyalties lie
(house unity? wizards' attitudes toward other magical beings?)  can and
should be woven into the plot without extending the book to 800  pages?
 
Julie:
I think it can be done. Harry's quest for the horcruxes will obviously  be
an important part of the book, but it doesn't have to take up *most* of 
the book. Especially if he gets assistance, say if the locket  is destroyed
by an RAB co-conspirator, Snape destroys one or two of them, etc.
It could take a while to get to the first one, but Harry could also  figure
out a shortcut to get to the others. And Nagini (assuming she is  one)
may go at nearly the same time as Voldemort. And multiple issues can
be addressed during certain main plots, e.g., Harry figuring out  Snape
during the Horcrux hunt or the final Voldemort confrontation, house
unity developing while Hogwarts is being attacked, etc. 
 
Carol:
Carol, hoping we've at least seen the last of S.P.E.W.
 
Julie:
I hope JKR at least wraps it up in some manner, as it took up a 
lot of space in Books 4 and 5 (and, IMO, wasn't as wasteful of
space as Grawp and the Giants). But it could be mentioned briefly,
with the house elves being given the freedom to choose servitude
if they wish (and most of them probably would choose it), and
with Dobby leading by example for those few who wish to follow
him. 


Julie
(who realizes she didn't mention the Malfoys, but is sure they will
play some part, especially Draco).




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 03:50:05 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:50:05 -0000
Subject: Polite Dumbledore/ Harry's feelings about Dursleys/Moral cruelty and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dkq02v+vcqp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkrrld+2sim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142703

> a_svirn:
> Would you mind explaining the difference between Dumbledore's 
> niceties when he "presses his advantage" with the Dursleys and 
> Voldemort's niceties when he demands Harry to observe the 
etiquette 
> of the wizarding duel. The similarities are striking; do you think 
> it was also a diplomatic gesture on Voldemort's part? 

Alla:

Oh, IMO,  the similarities are not THAT striking. While both 
Dumbledore and Voldemort have upper hand so to speak, I have  not 
noticed Dumbledore trying to kill Dursleys.



> a_svirn:
> Harry wants to leave both before and during this little 
performance. 
> When he packed his trunk and came down only to find the cowering 
> Dursleys and the serene Dumbledore he wanted to leave even more 
than 
> before. You may think this episode is a good joke, but Harry never 
> once sniggered or smirked. He was acutely uncomfortable throughout 
> the proceedings. Looks like he's not a big fun of poetic justice. 

Alla:

I think your interpretation and mine are equally valid because 
nowhere in that scene we hear Harry saying that he is uncomfortable 
watching what Dumbledore does to Dursleys. I mean, you could be 
right of course that Harry wants to leave because he is 
uncomfortable, but I think that I can also be right - that Harry 
wants to leave simply because he always wants to leave  the Dursleys.

Moreover, if you ARE right and Harry is not a big fan of poetic 
justice, it does not really matter to me ( I mean not that your 
views do not matter, but Harry's views on the subject for the 
purpose of this argument do not matter to me :-)) 

I know I AM a big fan of poetic justice and from some episodes in 
the books I interpret that JKR also is the one. I could be wrong of 
course.

If Harry is the better " person" than I am, well, that is 
fantastic. :-) I would like his character even more for that reason.

After all, at the moment I doubt that I would be able to feel pity 
for someone who ( G-d forbid) would kill my parents, no matter how 
awful his childhood had been and Harry was able to do that.

I remember reading the argument that Harry's pity for Tom was very 
brief and cheesy or something like that and thinking that it is a 
wonder that Harry was able to feel pity for Tom AT ALL. So, I guess 
I will not be surprised if we learn that Harry WAS feeling some pity 
towards Dursleys, but right now I don't believe that chapter 3 
explicitly states so. Just me of course.




> a_svirn:
> 
> Well, no, I didn't mean that. Although while we on the subject I 
> must say that it's not polite in the least to share 
> your "overwhelming happiness" with the family who just suffered a 
> bereavement. Especially if you are happy about something that 
caused 
> the said bereavement in the first place.

Alla:

LOL! True, but who knows maybe for some reason they figured out that 
Dursleys were not exactly in mourning and that is why they felt it 
is OK to share the joy. 


a_svirn: 
> But you can refresh your recollection by rereading the "Keeper of 
> the Keys" chapter of the Philosopher Stone for instance. Here we 
> have a wizard being boorishly rude on Harry's behalf. Not to 
mention 
> violent on Dumbledore's.
>
Alla:

Oh, thanks. You see I have not even thought of Hagrid, because to me 
it was another early example of poetic justice in making. After all, 
we already saw how badly Harry was treated and  Hagrid comes on the 
scene after that. If for example we saw this scene  before we 
witnessed how Harry was treated, I may have felt differently or not.

> Christina:
<snip>
I know a lot of people consider Snape's primary character flaw his 
tendency to prey on those weaker than himself (although I believe he 
learned that from James and Sirius, but that's another thread),

Alla:

LOL! I think you underestimating the things James and Sirius learned 
from Snape. We know for a fact that at least one curse they 
definitely learned from Snape and not vice versa, but that is indeed 
another thread. :-)


Christina:
<snip>
and I've definitely spoken to people who have said that it is this 
behavior that prevents them from thinking that Snape can ever come 
to any good.  I'd really like to hear from people in this camp 
regarding the Dumbledore/Dursley scene.

Alla:

Well, not sure about being completely in that camp, since even 
though I always wanted Snape punish for what he does to Harry and 
Neville, pre HBP I was thinking that he would do some good as loyal 
soldier of the Light side, but I am in that camp enough - so my 
answer is again - poetic justice.

  
Christina:

> My point is, the fact that the Dursleys are Muggles and don't
> understand magic is constantly exploited by wizards.  This is what
> bothers me most about the Dumbledore/Dursley meeting.  As much as 
we
> cry foul when Position-of-Authority!Snape picks on Child!Harry, 
people
> seem shockingly approving when Dumbledore does the exact same 
thing to
> the Dursleys.  

Alla:

The biggest difference to me is that before anything done to 
Dursleys, they already mistreated Harry and that is why I am not 
getting upset about it. Snape picks on Harry, but Harry did not do 
anything to Snape. Dursleys hurt Harry plenty, IMO. JKR is not 
writing the book where justice system will deal with Dursleys, so 
she punishes them with black humor and yeah, sometimes wizards 
having an upper hand, IMO.


Nora:
> If JKR is telling a story of the Ordinary Vices as well as of 
grand-scale metaphysical Evil, then we should pay as much attention 
to the consistent patterns of ill behavior characters evince.  
Things add up.  Voldemort probably couldn't have done what he did 
without the implicit cooperation of the attitudes of much of 
wizarding society. Smaller evils than larger ones, but so important 
in how people relate to each other.

Alla:

Yeah, Ordinary Vices. I am rereading that book again. I think it 
nailes SO many issues related to Potterverse. I did tell you how 
grateful I am that you recommended this book to me, I think. :-)

" 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 no anybody else"

That is SO nailes what Snape does, IMO and I am talking about pre- 
HBP Snape, mind you, because even if Snape is loyal to Dumbledore, I 
hope we agree that there is at least a possibility that he may be 
not and if he is not then we are not talking about everyday evil or 
maybe about everyday evil transformed into huge evil, I don't know.


Again,

just my opinion

Alla








From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  9 04:39:37 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:39:37 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <21b.2379ff3.30a2ca6b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dkrui9+ubmg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142704

 
> Carol wrote:
<snip invitation to discuss underdone potential of Book seven> 

> and Julie replied with a list of..:
> ...edit... other things JKR has mentioned will be in Book 7....

Valky now:
Good list Julie. I'd like to just give my quick opinion on the answer
to some of them. I won't go into detail unless someone asks for it.


> 3. We will find out the importance of Dumbledore's defeat of 
> Grindenwald. (Probably relating to the horcruxes)

Valky:
Could this be that Dumbledore didn't defeat Grindelwald completely
alone? I just wonder if we are yet to meet Dumbledore's Ron and
Hermione type friends, perhaps his brother and another important
person. I mean was Dumbledore *always* so solitary? 


> 6. We will find out the significance of Voldemort's fetal form in 
> GoF.

Valky:
I am so very curious about this one. IIRC JKR tells in the interview
that she was able to 'justify' the grotesque detail of this depiction
because it was so important and relevant. The first thing that springs
to mind for me is that the details are important to the conceptual
model of body/life in the Potterverse. If so, that goes to the theory
that it is about Voldemorts cursed life hence accursed body. And yet
that doesn't quite get there for me, I am not sure thats all there is
to it exactly.


>  
> 7. We will meet an Order member we haven't fully met yet. (Or some
> wording like that)

Valky:
IMO his one links to number three. At least in my theory it does - the
order member is Aberforth, I think. And I hypothesise that we will
discover he was experimenting on goats for a particular reason.


> Carol:
> But what about the other (not so minor) characters, especially  Ron 
> and Hermione? What will Hermione do if she doesn't have the  
> Hogwarts library at hand to do her research? 

Valky:
I am wondering what effect having a bright young witch around again
will have on Petunia. If we are to *ever* find out what Petunia's
secret is, I am placing a bet that it might be stirred out of her by
something Hermione does.

Carol:
> And what about Ron's skills ...

Valky:
My favourite theory is tat we have a foreshadowing in Knockturn Alley
in HBP, when Hermione tells Ron - next time you show us how it's done
Master of Mystery. <g> I think it would be a great character moment
for Ron if he did get the chance to do just that, and 'weasel'
valuable information out of Borgin. There is certainly a reason for
them to try to squeeze Borgin for insight seeing that Harry now knows
Voldie worked there while he was collecting horcrux objects. 


> Carol:
> I'm disappointed, BTW, that all the hands on Molly's clock  are
> *already* pointing to mortal peril. What good is that? If one of  
> her children is in genuine danger, threatened by a dragon (Charlie)  
> or kidnapped from their Diagon Alley shop by DEs (the Twins), how 
> will she know that their "peril" is more "mortal" than that of the 
> rest of the family  sitting in relative safety in the Burrow?

Valky:
I couldn't help thinking that somehow Molly knew deep down that her
family's mortal peril is directly linked to not just their alliance
with Dumbledore but specifically their importance to Harry.

  
> Julie:
> I
> wonder if there is another indicator on the  clock, maybe "Mortal
> Peril--Really, We Mean It This Time!" Or maybe the Mortal Peril 
> starts flashing red if a family member is facing impeding death.
> 

Valky:
HEE I couldn't let that pass without a giggle Juli. <g> 

> Carol:
> Carol, hoping we've at least seen the last of S.P.E.W.
>  
> Julie:
> I hope JKR at least wraps it up in some manner, as it took up a 
> lot of space in Books 4 and 5 (and, IMO, wasn't as wasteful of
> space as Grawp and the Giants). But it could be mentioned briefly,
> with the house elves being given the freedom to choose servitude
> if they wish (and most of them probably would choose it), and
> with Dobby leading by example for those few who wish to follow
> him. 


Valky:
Now here's something specific that I wondered about. Dobby works for
Hogwarts for a regular pay. Will he still be paid now Dumbledore is
gone? If he is not, then I hope that Molly adopts him and pays him in
knit jumpers and socks instead, he would love it! :)








From downtownnac at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 03:10:47 2005
From: downtownnac at yahoo.com (Justin)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:10:47 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkr9ie+d4lm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkrpbn+72qg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142705

Goddlefrood:

> Your speculation regarding Filch has one quite large flaw. It is 
> that during the time when Tom Riddle was a student Filch was not the 
> caretaker. 


Justin:
Well, I will admit that my theory assumes that Filch was at Hogwarts 
when Riddle walked the halls, and true, there is no solid proof that 
he was. The main argument that he wasn't there comes from Mr. 
Weasley's recount of the time he was put in chains for detention by 
another caretaker. However, just becase there was another caretaker, 
doesn't nessesarily mean that Filch wasn't there. I have checked every 
reference to Filch in the Lexicon, plus every time line. There is no 
mention of Filch's age, or when he first came to Hogwarts. He is only 
list as 'older'. 

The thing I just can't figure about Regulas is how he would have known 
about the Holocruxes. Remember, Voldemort doesn't have friends, and 
trusts no one. I just can't see a Death-eater wannabe like Regulas 
having the access to them. Not to mention, hasn't Rowling beat the 
Black Family tree to death? What, are we going to find out that every 
wizard that plays a major role in the series is a Black? I think the 
Black family has pretty much run its course with the death of Sirius.

On another note, in another theory... no one has mentioned Borgin or 
Burke (I might be wrong in the spelling) the owners of the Dark Magic 
item shop. Riddle worked for them for a time, and they are both 
knowledgable about all kinds of dark items. Who's to say they didn't 
snatch the thing to sell?

Justin.









From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  9 05:31:09 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:31:09 -0000
Subject: Lupin in Book 7 (Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters...)
In-Reply-To: <dkr3e3+ndc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dks1it+3dpp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142706

Carol:
> Maybe Hagrid will take care of Hedwig, who's too conspicuous for
> Harry to use as a means of communication, so maybe Harry will use
> his Patronus to communicate with Lupin, who (IMO) will need to
> remain at 12 GP as he can no longer spy on the werewolves (his
> cover is blown--the DEs saw him fighting as an Order member at
> Hogwarts).

Julie:
> I agree Lupin blew his cover, so I'd assume he'll be holed up with
> the Order, or with Tonks ;-) Grimmald Place seems likely. I
> suspect the two of them will join in a battle against DEs at
> some point though.

Jen: I've been thinking about Lupin recently--so glad you two 
mentioned that he blew his cover as I hadn't thought of that. For 
Harry, Grimmauld must feel like the money he won for the Triwizard 
tournament--a burden instead of a gift, and 'won' at a very high 
price. Harry will gladly hand over the house to Lupin and Tonks 
permanently if they'll accept it. Lupin can remove the rest of the 
dark creatures and hopefully the House Elf Wall of Fame, and Tonks 
and Hermione will put their heads together and come up with a 
solvent for the permanent sticking charms (and sell it to the Other 
Minister? <g>).

I have high hopes for Lupin's further development in Book 7. Why 
else did JKR leave the last Marauder standing if not to help bridge 
the gap between the past Harry is finally exploring and the onerous 
task he has left to accomplish? Lupin seems perfectly poised to help 
Harry now that Sirius and Dumbledore are gone. I expected to see 
this relationship develop in HBP, then realized it made perfect 
sense to shunt him off to the werewolf camp with nary a letter, so 
Harry could focus on Dumbledore bonding. And I don't think this will 
ruin JKR's idea of Harry going on alone because Harry doesn't view 
Lupin as someone he *needs*. Lupin's kept Harry at a distance and 
therefore Harry doesn't depend on him. Lupin is a proven teacher for 
Harry though, and may be important for helping him develop a few 
last skills. 

There's so much Lupin can do for himself and Harry in this one *Rubs 
hands togther with anticipation*. For starters, he could go to 
Godric's Hollow with Harry, to put his own ghosts to rest as well as 
fill Harry in on vital information such as why Sirius/James 
suspected him to be the spy, Lily's and James' funeral, and perhaps 
even give us the final piece of information JKR promised about the 
Prank.

I'm waiting for Lupin to reveal himself as a Legilimens & find out 
how that figures into the plot, especially after the moment between 
he and Sirius in the Shrieking Shack: "But then..." Lupin muttered, 
staring at Black so intently it seemed he was trying to read his 
mind...(chap. 17, p. 344, Scholastic) There's another similar moment 
in OOTP when Sirius wants to tell Harry more about the 'weapon' and 
Molly is forbidding it. 

I *think* his skill will help Harry understand the scar connection 
and perhaps, as we debated in the possession thread, any other 
powers Voldemort transferred to Harry such as possession and/or 
legilimency. Lupin understands the dark arts in a much different way 
from Dumbledore, and his expertise will benefit Harry. Hopefully we 
will find out where he learned so much about the dark arts and why 
he had that battered case for his 'first' teaching gig, while JKR is 
at it.

Oh, and finally, Lily. I was so hoping a woman friend would fill us 
in on her, but they all seem to be dead or insane at the moment :(. 
Nope, Lupin will be the one--I'm convinced after JKR made the 
comment "Lupin was very fond of Lily, we'll put it like that, but I 
wouldn't want anyone to run around thinking that he competed with 
James for her." (TLC/MN 2005) You combine that thought with this 
comment: "Alfonso had good intuition about what would and wouldn't 
work. He's put things in the film that, without knowing it, 
foreshadow things that are going to happen in the final two books. 
So I really got goosebumps when I saw a couple of those things, and 
I thought people are going to look back on the film and think those 
were put in deliberately as clues." 

Yep, Lupin loved Lily I think, although in a very platonic way. It 
wouldn't surprise me to find out he was 'that awful boy' Petunia 
referred to, visiting Lily over summers as a friend before she and 
James got together.
  
Jen, who will be very surprised and sad if Lupin is shunted to the 
background again in Book 7.






From slgazit at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  9 09:03:38 2005
From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:03:38 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <21b.2379ff3.30a2ca6b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dkse1a+d3ob@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142707

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote:

My take on some of these points...

> Julie:
> I've been trying to remember other things JKR has mentioned will
> be in Book 7. So far I have:
>  
> 2. Depending on how one interprets that particular interview, JKR
> said in regards to Snape that something will happen relating to
> a) a redemptive pattern, or b) someone loving him. Or maybe it
> will be both. Certainly Snape will have a role to play on several 
> fronts. 

I think she said he was not as bad as he seemed, and he certainly
appears rather protective of Harry, but after performing an
Unforgivable Curse, I find it hard to believe he can survive the
series. I think that he'll most likely do some good but end up being
killed by either Hagrid (who was so fanatically loyal to DD) or Pettigrew.

> 5. A character will use magic late in life. (I'm putting this here
> because I don't think Merope is that character, though  technically
> she could be.)

I have a hunch it will be either Petunia, Mrs. Figg or Flitch...

> 7. We will meet an Order member we haven't fully met yet. (Or some
> wording like that)

This one is pretty straighforward - DD's brother Aberforth who is the
barman in the Hog's Head and known to have been in the previous order
(Moody's photograph). From hints dropped by DD ("merely friendly with
the local barmen") he is probably still a member.

> Carol:
> But what about the other (not so minor) characters, especially  Ron and
> Hermione?

I think Ron's and Hermione's role will be crucial in finding the
Horcruxes. I don't see how Harry can do it all on his own.

> Julie:
> I still think Harry may return to Hogwarts, at least briefly. And I 
> think Ron and Hermoine will still attend their seventh year. I'm 
> sure Ginny will attend her sixth year. Either way, they will  have
> a solid role to play (Ron's chess skills may well come into it,  as
> well as Hermoine's logical abilities).

I too expect him to get back there, assuming it is open. Perhaps a
will or letter from DD that will put it as a last wish. I believe at
least one (and probably the last) Horcrux is at Hogwarts and that's
where the final confrontation with V will happen.

> Julie:
> I don't know if I see Ron and Hermoine with Harry the whole time. I 
> rather expect Harry to go to Godric's Hollow alone.

No, this would be both dangerous and too emotional for him. I am sure
his two friends will be there and maybe Lupin (as their sole remaining
friend and Harry's bodyguard).

> And he'll no  doubt
> fact Voldemort alone at the pivotal moment (if anyone else is present
> and helps him, I actually think it will be Snape and/or Wormtail).

Yes to both points.

> Good point about Hedwig, and your theory about the two-way mirror
> sounds about right.

I suspect Hedwig will be killed and that DD's phoenix will become
Harry's new pet (if one can call him a pet).

>I agree Lupin blew his cover, so I'd assume he'll
> be holed up with the Order, or with Tonks ;-) Grimmald Place  seems 
> likely. I suspect the two of them will join in a battle against DEs  at
> some point though.

Harry has to get back to Grimauld Place to search for the locket at
some point. It's either still there or sold off by the enterprising
Mundungus. :-)

> Julie:
> I hope Ginny doesn't die, because Harry's lost enough people he 
> loves.

I don't believe she'll die but she will be threatened again by
Voldemort like she was in book 2. Harry cannot defeat Voldemort by
skill obviously and the prophecy suggests he'll use that "Power" that
he has but that Voldemort does not - which DD identified as love. So
Ginney is the logical choice here.

> On a side note, if Percy dies redeeming himself to his family, and
> Wormtail dies during repayment of his life debt to Harry (and  there
> is absolutely no point to him living), then maybe JKR will avoid 
> killing Snape and overdoing the redemption-by-death theme ;-)

I doubt Percy will die - he is stupid and shortsighted but never acted
truly evil. As for Snape, I can't see him redeemed after he commited
murder so he has to go too.

> Carol:
> So, what side plots (aside from Snape and RAB, which have  been
> thoroughly discussed) really, really need to be resolved and what  role
> will the sidekicks, subordinate heroes, and other minor  characters
> (Luna, Neville, Dobby, Percy, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, Slughorn . . .  . )
> play in resolving them? (Well, okay, we can include Snape here  in
> relation to future actions as opposed to past motivations and  events.)

I'd hardly see Snape as a "side plot" - he's at least as important to
the story as Voldemort.

I don't think there is much to add to the story by "resolving"
Umbridge and Scrimgeour - I doubt we'll see much of them.

Neville will almost certainly confront Belatrix ar some crucial point
and probably date Luna.

I suspect Luna will help with the Horcruxes as her mystical
personality pretty much compensates for Hermione's very practical and
non-imaginative personality. Probably that's why she was added to the
group - to provide balance.

I have a feeling Slughorn fulfilled his role. He'll still be there but
in a minor role (like Flitwick, say).

However, one person you did not mention that is sure to feature is
Trelawney. There were plenty of hints that 1. Her ability in
predicting the future is highly under-appreciated, especially when she
is drinking a lot :-) and 2. She is feeling sidetracked and resentful.
I suspect she'll leave Hogwarts (or perhaps be fired now that DD is
gone) and be quickly captured by Voldemort. Applying the same measures
he used on Bertha Jorkins he should be able to extract the full
prophecy from her.

I believe that the house elves, with Dobby and Kritcher (sp?) will
play a part, as will Grawp.

Salit






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 10:39:20 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 10:39:20 -0000
Subject: Polite Dumbledore/ Harry's feelings about Dursleys/Moral cruelty and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dkrrld+2sim@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dksjko+a72c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142708

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, IMO,  the similarities are not THAT striking. While both 
> Dumbledore and Voldemort have upper hand so to speak, I have  not 
> noticed Dumbledore trying to kill Dursleys.


a_svirn:
Er? Was Voldemort's "punctilious" observance of the duelling code a 
method to kill Harry? I rather thought he had the Killing Course for 
that. Nope, the purpose of that particular exercise was to humiliate 
Harry. And behind Dumbledor's little display of manners was exactly 
the same motivation. So, I'd say, the similarities are quite 
salient. The only difference is that Voldemort's audience was far 
more appreciative. 

> Alla:
> 
> I think your interpretation and mine are equally valid because 
> nowhere in that scene we hear Harry saying that he is 
uncomfortable 
> watching what Dumbledore does to Dursleys. I mean, you could be 
> right of course that Harry wants to leave because he is 
> uncomfortable, but I think that I can also be right - that Harry 
> wants to leave simply because he always wants to leave  the 
Dursleys.
> 
> Moreover, if you ARE right and Harry is not a big fan of poetic 
> justice, it does not really matter to me ( I mean not that your 
> views do not matter, but Harry's views on the subject for the 
> purpose of this argument do not matter to me :-)) 
> 

a_svirn:
I though we were arguing whether or not Harry felt uneasy about the 
situation. In which case it *does* indeed matter for the purpose of 
*this* discussion. And although you are right and he simply wanted 
to leave the place in the beginning of the chapter, closer to the 
end he was unmistakably embarrassed about the whole thing. Why else 
he "didn't dare to look at the Dursleys" who were cowering on the 
sofa? In my experience averted eyes usually mean that you are 
embarrassed or ashamed or both. 

> Alla:
> I know I AM a big fan of poetic justice and from some episodes in 
> the books I interpret that JKR also is the one. I could be wrong 
of 
> course.

a_svirn:
Why yes, I think you are right and she is. 


> Alla:
> 
> Oh, thanks. You see I have not even thought of Hagrid, because to 
me 
> it was another early example of poetic justice in making. <snip>

a_svirn:
What do you mean "in the making"?!! He actually bestowed a pigtail 
on Dudley that had to be removed surgically. I'd say it's poetic 
justice in full bloom. 







From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov  9 05:17:58 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:17:58 -0500
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkq0q5+decn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAfeU4vtnf/02QinUxHg4nkwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142709

Orna:
I agree that DD could have bullied the Dursleys into treating Harry 
better. The mere owl-post addressed towards Harry in the cupboard 
was enough to give him a room upstairs. But, that wouldn't be the 
point. I mean - the whole thing about caring and loving is that it 
has to be done willfully. That's what Voldermort is incapable of 
understanding, when he coerces people into obedience, and thinks 
himself powerful, because of that. I don't see DD coercing the 
Dursleys into caring-like behavior, if it's not an absolute MUST. I 
liked the scene, because, DD's real power was the way he talked, and 
that's also IMO what made Petunia flinch - something got through to 
her.  (Reminds of his wandless dialogue with Draco, which has the 
power to bring Draco to some real confession of the terror he is 
from Voldermort) .  I think that JKR is very consistent in ways of 
showing the many faces of power, and drawing a (not always easy 
line) between coercive and abusive power, and "love-power". 


Bruce Alan Wilson: 
 
DD could have frightened or coerced the Dursleys to be 'nice' to Harry, but he could not have forced them to LOVE him.  Love cannot be forced.  What DD was able to accomplish is to make the Dursleys think about the way they treated Harry and to feel ashamed of it.  While 'shame' has been given a 'bad rap' the last couple of decades, it can be a good thing if it can impel one to change one's behavior from what caused the shame.
 
Now, one might argue that DD shouldn't have put Harry with the Dursleys in the first place, or should have kept a better eye on them during the first 10 years, but I'm sure that he had reasons for doing what he did.  Harry would have grown up with a very different personality had he grown up in more congenial surroundings; perhaps DD knew that he would need the tempering of an adverse upbringing to face what he had to face.
 
Also, I would make a tepid defense of the Dursleys.  They COULD have put Harry in an orphanage, but they didn't.  And I don't remember Uncle Vernon, for all his bluster, ever hit Harry, nor did Aunt Petunia.  When he got the Hogwarts letter, they didn't seem relieved, they didn't say, 'We can wash our hands the brat.'  No, they seemed to think that going to Hogwarts was a bad thing.  Vernon refers to wizardry as 'dangerous nonsense.'  When Petunia talks about Lily's
going to Hogwarts and becoming a witch, she is angry and jealous, but also FRIGHTENED.  In spite of her jealousy, it seemed that Petunia loved Lilly, and Harry is the only link she has to her.  Going to Hogwarts got Lilly killed (or, at least, that's what Petunia probably thinks), and now Harry is going off just like Lily did--and may get killed in the same way.  Petunia is terrified of that, and Vernon (for all his faults) I think loves Petunia and will do anything
to make her happy.
 
All that being said, their treatment of Harry very bad, but they didn't do it out of sadistic love of cruelty for its own sake.  What they did was wrong, but they did it for the right reason, and they will never, never understand WHY they did wrong; that is their tragedy, in a way.

Bruce Alan Wilson





From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov  9 05:32:37 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:32:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <002301c5e4d7$d7661420$6a01a8c0@IBME69E742C294>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAlBEh54zxL0Wnzzu/dr4jMQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142710

Rachel Ellington wrote:
> These are not people that should be afforded manners or civility in 
> my opinion. 


Bruce Alan Wilson:
Some contend that everyone deserves to be treated with respect and civility, and that to meet rudeness with rudeness only lowers one to their level.
 
Personally, I think that this is fine in theory, but sometimes one has to remember the injunction of pearls and swine. 






From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov  9 06:02:10 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 01:02:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkppii+igdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAPVz8D56oQEeJi35JijADjAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142711

Lealess wrote:
> The reason this argument doesn't hold water for me is that the
> correspondence is all one-sided.  It isn't as if the Dursleys were
> asking for Dumbledore's interference or his blessings.  They didn't
> want to be part of the wizarding world, full stop.  


Bruce Alan Wilson:
Then they should have refused to keep Harry.  They could have sent him to an orphanage.  Aunt Petunia knows enough about the WW to have contacted someone and say, "We can't take him."  They agreed to keep him; that is a contract, one which they have not (fully) kept.  DD has a right to exact some sort of redress for their not having fully upheld their end of the bargain.  Given the powers he can summon, being forced to put up with DD's company for an hour or so is fairly benign.  When he and Harry leave, the Dursleys have not been harmed, and they have been given several things to think about, especially Aunt Petunia who,
IMHO, as much as Uncle Vernon may bluster and shout, really wears the pants in that family. 







From deeby8658 at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Nov  9 12:22:04 2005
From: deeby8658 at yahoo.co.uk (deeby8658)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:22:04 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
Message-ID: <dksplc+b7kn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142712

Slgazit wrote
<Snip>
I believe that the house elves, with Dobby and Kritcher (sp?) will
play a part, as will Grawp.



Deeby now:
I don't think there can be any doubt of that. IMO JKR has spent far 
too much time on these to simply drop them at the end. They also 
seem to be a part of the unity and equality theme and, as such, 
their widespread ill treatment seems to reflect the intolerance of 
pure bloods for half and mudbloods.

Also, whilst I would agree that the whole SPEW/Grawp subplots were 
convoluted (and at times incredibly intrusive) Dobby, Kreacher et al 
seem to drive the narrative forward significantly.

Therefore I feel sure that they will play /some/ role in the 
overthrow of LV, especially if the battle takes place at Hogwarts. I 
also just like to imagine how delighted Hermione will be when this 
leads to a new, more egalitarian statue at the MoM to replace the 
one blasted to pieces in OotP ? Victory for SPEW at last!

Deeby ? who on refection thinks that the symbolism of that statue 
being blasted to bits as the second war begins would repay further 
thought and is hurrying off to reread it.










From h.m.s at mweb.co.za  Wed Nov  9 10:10:26 2005
From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:10:26 +0200
Subject: Polite Dumbledore
Message-ID: <005901c5e516$1ba904b0$0200a8c0@Sharon>

No: HPFGUIDX 142713

Hi all
Not going to directly quote anyone here:
Quite frankly - I don't care whether Dumbledore was being polite or not in
his treatment of the Dursleys.  I LOVED reading this scene!!!  I actually
thought that Dumbledore was being remarkably restrained.  He came inside
(invited or not) because it was  TOO DANGEROUS to remain outside (the WAR
HAS STARTED, people) while he cleared up a few urgent matters with Harry (eg
Harry's inheritance from Sirius,  Kreacher, etc)  Dumbledore could have shut
the Dursleys into the kitchen or turned them into pigs or something, instead
of offering them a seat and a drink.  In effect, he was taking the role of
the host, which Vernon declined to be; and the Dursleys even refused to be
gracious guests.
Sharon






From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Nov  9 14:05:42 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:05:42 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dkoqjh+mps7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dksvnm+bqhd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142714

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" <darqali at y...> wrote:
>
> Goddlefrood (a Roman centurion in a previous incarnation):
> > 
> > The Roman Empire is most usually dated to the Battle of Actium on 
> > 2nd September 31 B.C. Rather less than 4000 years ago. The city 
of 
> > Rome itself had its "legendary founding" in 753 B.C. by Romulus 
and 
> > Remus. Again rather less than 4000 years ago (1995 B.C.)
> > 
> > The Romans did indeed invent plumbing however and the website to 
> > which you refer as your source should perhaps be notified of this 
> > information.
> > 
> > The Roman Republic was founded rather later, that is in 510 B.C. 
> > after the last of the Kings was expelled and the Consuls 
enthroned 
> > in his place.
> 
> 
> Being very elderly, my education is out of date; but I did in fact 
> major in History in collegs, and am in fact very well aware that 
the 
> Romans had "plumbing" {of sorts}; and toilets {of sorts} and hey! 
> hypocaust central heating, too!
> 
> However, they did *not* have *flushing* toilets, nor any sort of 
> interior plumbing resembling that described in Hogwart's castle, 
> within which S. Slythern hid the entrance to the Chamber of 
Secrets, 
> and within which the Basilisk was able to get around the castle un-
> seeen, as described by JKR.  And the Muggles of the era of the 
> building of Hogwart's didn't have them at that time {yet} either.
> 
> Since Hogwart's apparently *did* have these things, very similar to 
> modern Muggle plumbing, 1000 years in the past, it is simple to 
> conclude that Wizards invented modern plumbing.
> 
> Indeed, since we see very ancient wizarding world characters 
> celebrated on the Chocolate Frog trading cards, such as Circe, and 
> the much later Merlin and so on, one may then conclude that perhaps 
> the versions of plumbing used by the ancient Romans were Wizard 
> invention as well ....
> 
> "darqali"

ahh, but the entrance to the Chamber wasn't a flushing toilet, it was 
part of the sinks - which is plumbing and the Romans, if not the 
Empire, did invent.  They had running water, indoor plumbing and 
sewer system in place which "wasn't surpassed in capability until 
very modern times." from http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-
aqueducts.php

and "No society of old advanced plumbing technology as much as the 
Roman Empire. As long ago as 800 B.C. the Romans built enormous 
sewers to drain waste from the city. The Cloaca Maxima was Imperial 
Rome's main drainage trunk. Amazingly, it remains in use today as 
part of modern Rome's drainage system. Public lavatories date back 
just as far, with water constantly running beneath the latrines to 
wash the waste into Rome's sewer system. " and
"Luxurious indoor bathrooms have been found in the homes of upper-
crust Romans predating the Empire's famed public baths. In the ruins 
of Pompeii, destroyed by Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D., have been found 
private homes with entire submerged rooms that served as baths, or 
perhaps more accurately described as indoor pools. Marble steps led 
down from the concrete floor of the main house. Walls were marble-
lined, and in a hollow space under the floor, a fire burned. The heat 
passed up through hollow terra cotta tiles to keep both air and water 
a comfortable temperature. 

Also discovered in the Pompeii ruins were ancient water spigots and 
water closets flushed by water from a cistern. Included are metal 
hinges that archaeologists believe attached to wooden toilet seats 
that have since deteriorated. Some homes in Pompeii had as many as 30 
water taps."

http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverSt
oryItem/0,2730,4435,00.html

so regardless of the bathrooms in the WW world, it seems that the 
Romans and also the Greeks had these systems in place way before 1000 
years ago.  Did Hogwarts upgrade?  Sure.  But I think the pipes and 
all had been laid into the foundations when it was built, but based 
on what we know of Roman technology, it seems that the WW probably 
looked to that, as that does predate Hogwarts.  

Also, bathrooms and being clean was not a thing Brits or the rest of 
Europe favored too much since the fall of the Roman Empire - it isn't 
only in recent times that we bathe more often that once a lifetime.  
There is an amusing tale about a woman who boasted that she hadn't 
washed her face in years - from the 2nd link:
"One 4th Century religious tract cites a pilgrim to Jerusalem gushing 
with pride that she had not washed her face in 18 years so as not to 
disturb the holy water of her baptism. "

colebiancardi
(The Romans are credited with the modern system of plumbing, sewer 
systems and so on...they really should get the credit here)
 
 






From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 14:47:13 2005
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:47:13 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkrpbn+72qg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkt25h+7jun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142715

> Justin wrote:
> On another note, in another theory... no one has mentioned Borgin 
or 
> Burke (I might be wrong in the spelling) the owners of the Dark 
Magic 
> item shop. Riddle worked for them for a time, and they are both 
> knowledgable about all kinds of dark items. Who's to say they 
didn't 
> snatch the thing to sell?

ibchawz responds:

Actually, Burke would not fit since his initials are not RAB. I don't 
recall exactly what they are and I don't have my books with me at the 
time.  Here is a list of all possibilities that I have seen posted 
either here or elsewhere.  You will see that I have added your guess 
of Argus Filch to the list.  

a)	Regulus A. Black - Seems to be the front runner.

b)	Rosmerta (from the Three Broomsticks) Amy Benson - Could this 
be the Amy Benson that young Tom Riddle tortured in the cave or her 
daughter? 
 
c)	Borgin (of Borgin and Burkes) - We don't know anything but 
his last name.

d)	RABastan Lestrange - While I really think that the RAB is 
someone's initials, RAB could be short for RABastan.

e)	Remember Amy Benson

f)	Remember Amelia Bones

g)	R. Andromeda Black

h)	RAB = Ronald+Arthur+Bilius (the three Weasley senior 
brothers, or perhaps somebody in the family who bore all three names)

i)      R. Amelia Bones - Full name is Amelia Susan Bones, so she 
does not have 'R' as a first initial.

j)      Really Any Body - This one is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but 
could tie in with k) below.

k)	Nobody.  This was a trick by LV and part of the horcrux 
protection.  If someone finds the horcrux, they would think it was a 
fake because of the note.

l)      Argus Filch - Caretaker at Hogwarts and a squib who changed 
his name to remove any ties with his family.

ibchawz









From tmarends at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 15:13:54 2005
From: tmarends at yahoo.com (Tim)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:13:54 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkrcrr+e7h0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkt3ni+1ra3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142716

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" <rh64643 at a...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apollo414j" <apollo414j at y...>
> wrote:
> 
> > Apollo414j:
> > Definitely. I think it's important to note that Rowling writes a 
> > great deal of her books based on ideas of misdirection and 
guiding 
> > people in the wrong direction. 
> 
>   This is often true. However, the main reason that I believe R.A.B 
to
> be Regulus, is that Hermione didnt think of it. If Hermione had come
> back from the library and listed Regulus as a possibility, I would
> probably not believe it. Hermione nor anyone else in the trio even
> thought of Regulus, which I think is odd unless JKR didn't want to
> give it away just yet. I also believe that the identity of R.A.B 
will
> not be the big mystery. The big questions will be: is he indeed 
dead,
> how well did he know L.V, how did he find out for sure about 
horcruxes
> years before D.D, and did he indeed destroy the locket? I believe
> that, that is quite enough to be going on with.

Of course Regulus is dead.  Kreatcher wouldn't have to obey Harry if 
he wasn't.

Tim
>








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  9 15:20:59 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:20:59 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Time_lines_(was_Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T,_continued?=
In-Reply-To: <dkpbmb+4nd2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkt44r+fju4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142717

> 
> Carol responds:
> As has already been noted, not just the first three but the first 
four
> chapters seem to take place at approximately the same time on the 
same
> night (and involve unexpected visitors in a different Muggle
> location). Chapter 1 begins at just before midnight on what appears 
to
> be a Friday night (both the Muggle PM and Fudge talk about the week
> they've been having). Chapter 2 seems to follow immediately 
afterward,
> as the fog shifts from London to the industrial north. I'd say it
> can't be much past 1:00 as the action (as opposed to the flashbacks)
> in chapter 1 can't take much time. It might even be earlier, say
> around 12:30 when Narcissa and Bellatrix Apparate into the vicinity 
of
> Spinner's End. Chapter 3 backtracks and we have a sleeping Harry
> waiting for 11:00 on what is definitely a Friday night. The clock
> strikes midnight in the next chapter and there's enough talk and
> action to make the events at Slughorn's occur at roughly the same 
time
> as "Spinner's End," or only slightly before, so that Slughorn's
> acceptance of the Potions appointment occurs while Snape is talking
> with the Black sisters--making him officially the DADA teacher and
> subject to the DADA curse just in time for Narcissa to propose the 
UV.

Potioncat:
All three chapters begin late at night. It does seem to me that 
chapter two follows chapter one on the same night, given the wording 
as chapter two opens. I'm not as clear about chapter three. Couldn't 
this be a week later?

Harry has a letter from three days ago (Tuesday?) saying DD would 
like Harry to go on a visit with him bfore going to the Weasley 
house. If this is all the same night, then DD had already decided to 
make Snape DADA days before. When Narcissa gets to Spinner's End, 
Snape is already the DADA teacher and knows it. DD is actively 
seeking a Potions Master and in particular, wants Slughorn. I don't 
think Slughorn's acceptance or rejection of the offer would change 
Snape's position.

So the time line would be 
Tuesday: DD has decided to make Snape DADA. He writes to Harry and is 
already planning to visit Slughorn with the offer. I assume Snape 
already knows as well.

Friday: the UV is made, Harry and DD visit Slughorn who agrees to be 
DADA.

OR
Friday: the UV is made (unclear if Snape is already DADA)
Tuesday: DD writes letter and plans to meet with Slughorn
Friday following: Slughorn accepts.

Actually, I think Carol's timeline makes more sense...although 4 
chapters that only last a few hours between them is pretty amazing. 
It also depends on whether DD decided to make Snape DADA because of 
the UV, or if Snape fell into the UV because he was already DADA.

Potioncat, who had other ideas when she first asked about the 3 (4) 
chapters working together, but now sees this very good reason!





 









From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Nov  9 15:50:24 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:50:24 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkt3ni+1ra3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkt5s0+iph9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142718

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tim" <tmarends at y...> wrote:
>
> quite enough to be going on with.
> 
> Of course Regulus is dead.  Kreatcher wouldn't have to obey Harry if 
> he wasn't.
> 
> Tim
> >

no necessarily - Sirius & DD could have put together a spell that 
would have made Regulus seem dead to Kreatcher.  That could be another 
reason why DD had to make sure Kreatcher would obey Harry when Sirius 
willed #12 to him

colebiancardi







From va32h at comcast.net  Tue Nov  8 03:23:02 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:23:02 -0000
Subject: Pondering on the Prank
In-Reply-To: <dkoqg7+qu1o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkp5mm+n5pb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142719

quick_silver71 wrote:

> > Now RAB stands a good chance of being Regulus Black and it could 
be 
> > that he ties in with the Prank. Wouldn't that be a motive? What if 
> > Sirius Black felt that Snape was luring his younger brother down 
the 
> > dark path? > 

Then colebiancardi wrote:

> ahh....you've made me remember(like I would ever forget it) my theory
> of Regulus was the answer to Snape's remorse.  


This never occurred to me before, but I think it is brilliant! I much 
prefer the idea of Snape's remorse being over Regulus than unrequited 
love for Lily. (The idea of Snape pining for Harry's mother is off-
putting to me in itself, and I consider Snape such a complex character 
that a "traditional" motive, like unrequited love, just doesn't seem 
right for him).

va32h










From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Tue Nov  8 18:22:51 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:22:51 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dkogpd+947k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkqqdr+i3gb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142720

colebiancardi:

> so I guess timeturners DO work with going into the future then?   
> Argghh....I know, one liners aren't allowed, so I shall be obvious 
> girl and state the HP books take place in the 1990's and LotR movies 
> didn't come out until 2001.
> 
> And I don't think Snape or Sirius are the type to see muggle movies :)
 


Actually, the HP books take place in some vague 'a few years ago', as evidenced by the Playstation before there was Playstation and other such details. And can't you just see Sirius and James watching Star Wars?

MercuryBlue









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Wed Nov  9 14:33:57 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:33:57 -0000
Subject: And once again Dumbledore!Abuse  (was Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?)
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAfeU4vtnf/02QinUxHg4nkwEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dkt1cm+rrk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142721

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
<bawilson at c...> wrote:

> Now, one might argue that DD shouldn't have put Harry with the 
Dursleys in the first place, or should have kept a better eye on 
them during the first 10 years, but I'm sure that he had reasons for 
doing what he did.  Harry would have grown up with a very different 
personality had he grown up in more congenial surroundings; perhaps 
DD knew that he would need the tempering of an adverse upbringing to 
face what he had to face.
>  

And once again we are right back into the very problem that JKR was 
trying to rescue DD from by backing off of this whole issue.  Simply 
put, such policies make DD an accessory to child abuse.  His 
reasoning is completely and utterly irrelevant.  What Harry had to 
face was completely and utterly irrelevant.  The fate of the 
wizarding world and DD's responsibility for it or lack thereof is 
completely and utterly irrelevant.

Now, I have no doubt that JKR had no intention of implying any such 
thing.  I think she is quite sincere that she wanted to portray DD 
as "the epitome of goodness" and I don't think she had any intention 
of implying craftiness, manipulation, cold-calculation, or any of a 
number of other dark traits often ascribed to the headmaster.  As 
she has said, she wrote the end of OOTP in a hurry and in the midst 
of a difficult pregnancy.  DD's speech at the end of that book was 
incredibly ill-considered, and opened a can of worms that she tried 
to shut very firmly once again in the third chapter of HBP.

Unfortunately, having made that misstep, it is very difficult for 
her to recover DD's character fully into the mode I think she very 
sincerely wanted to project.  She has to resort to handwaving and 
tacit rewriting, as well as accepting a solution that, at best, 
makes DD look like a benign fool.  But, as I've said before, better 
a benign fool than a child abuser, which is what he would be if she 
had not dropped the OOTP speech like a red-hot poker.


Lupinlore










From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Nov  9 16:43:51 2005
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 08:43:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dkrui9+ubmg@eGroups.com>
References: <21b.2379ff3.30a2ca6b@aol.com> <dkrui9+ubmg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40511090843m21a07873yab2b99236a472b92@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142722

> 7. We will meet an Order member we haven't fully met yet. (Or some
> wording like that)

Valky:
IMO his one links to number three. At least in my theory it does - the
order member is Aberforth, I think. And I hypothesise that we will
discover he was experimenting on goats for a particular reason.
.
 Kemper now:
I agree with Valky and would add that his inappropriate charms on a goat may
prove significant. Could his charms have anything to do with Bezoars? It's
like JKR to give us seemingly insignificant tidbits of info that turn out to
be big chunks of data.


  Salit wrote:
However, one person you did not mention that is sure to feature is
Trelawney. There were plenty of hints that 1. Her ability in
predicting the future is highly under-appreciated, especially when she
is drinking a lot :-) and 2. She is feeling sidetracked and resentful.
I suspect she'll leave Hogwarts (or perhaps be fired now that DD is
gone) and be quickly captured by Voldemort. Applying the same measures
he used on Bertha Jorkins he should be able to extract the full
prophecy from her.
.
 Kemper again:
Or Trelawney could be asked to leave by the acting Headmaster, McGonagall
who is unaware of the prophecy wording and unaware of the prophet but
dislikes Trelawney and her wooly subject.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From papa at marvels.org  Wed Nov  9 15:19:52 2005
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:19:52 -0500
Subject: What's in a Name? (CHAPDISC - Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <1a4.43941b7e.30a29e3c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42FD96A400025105@mta12.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142723

Julie:

No strike could be sharper than calling her the foulest name he could muster,
thus hurting her as she has (unintentionally) hurt him. 
<snip>
The idea that Snape called Lily "mudblood" because of inborn prejudice
seems especially odd now that we know he isn't a pureblood, and later
called himself by a title that emphasized that fact (Half-Blood Prince).
And if this really is his worst memory, then the insult shouted out of impulsive anger and humiliation, which he can't take back once his 
anger subsides even if he dearly wishes he could, makes sense. 

RM:

Forgive me if this is just an elaborate "I agree post" but I wanted to make
sure I'm reading Julie's point correctly. I have always thought that:
1) If this is the sharpest insult he could muster and
2) He hurt her in using it and
3) He didn't have the inborn prejudice then
this becomes his worst memory not because he was humiliated, (evidently
the marauders did that to him as often as they could), but because he hurt
Lily with what he knew was a foul insult when he really had feelings for
her, making himself look like a jerk in front of her. I think Snape is very
aware of how he appears to her after this incident and it crushes him. 

RM.









From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 16:56:46 2005
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:56:46 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <dkrq9j+7g1c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkt9oe+ejur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142724

 > Alla:
<SNIP>
> Woudn't you agree that Snape did what ANY half decent person was 
> supposed to do after such person realised that being a member of 
> terrorist organization is very very WRONG?


Montavilla:

Maybe any half-decent person ought to do what Snape did in returning to Dumbledore, 
but it isn't necessarily an easy thing to do.  We have any number of examples in real life 
right now of how difficult it can be to whistle-blow on a powerful organization, even (and 
especially) those who are supposed to be lawful.

Think what it took for the soldiers who exposed the abuses in our military prisons.  Think 
about what happened to an ambassador and his wife when he pointed out a factual error 
in a political speech.  If you liken the Death Eaters to, say, a gangster mob, what does it 
take to turn state's witness on them?  In that case, you're fortunate if you don't have 
friends or relatives they can kill in revenge.  

How easy was it to expose the executives and accountants who robbed the employees of 
Enron?  Or release the memos that showed tobacco companies understood the dangers of 
cigarettes and hid study results.

Did Snape gain all that much from returning to Dumbledore?  He got a job and a place to 
live during the school year out of it.  If he's DDM!Snape and Voldemort finds out for sure, 
then he's earned a very painful death.  If he's LVM!Snape (as he certainly appears to be 
now) and the Ministry catches him, he'll get Azkaban for life at least.  Even before killing 
Dumbledore, he'd get Azakaban for life, like any other Death Eater.

If ANY half-decent person would defy their own colleagues and bosses to do the right 
thing, then there would be a lot less casual evil in the world.  Yes, they should.  We all 
should.  But very few do.

Montavilla.









From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Nov  9 17:07:22 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:07:22 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dkqqdr+i3gb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktaca+bf4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142726

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng"
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:
>
> colebiancardi:
>
> > so I guess timeturners DO work with going into the future then?
> > Argghh....I know, one liners aren't allowed, so I shall be
obvious
> > girl and state the HP books take place in the 1990's and LotR
movies
> > didn't come out until 2001.
> >
> > And I don't think Snape or Sirius are the type to see muggle
movies :)
>
>
>
> Actually, the HP books take place in some vague 'a few years ago',
as evidenced by the Playstation before there was Playstation and
other such details. And can't you just see Sirius and James watching
Star Wars?
>
> MercuryBlue
>


It isn't very vague - we do have timelines. Harry is born in 1980,
so all of the events from SS/PS to HBP is from July 1991 to June
1997. Way BEFORE 2001 and the release of Lord of the Rings as an
inspiration for Snape & Sirius to copy Aragorn's hair in the movie:)

And, cough, cough, Playstation was around in those ancient days 
:-) "The history of the Playstation begins in 1988 when Sony and
Nintendo were working together to develop the Super Disc.....In 1991,
Sony used a modified version of the Super Disk as part of their new
game console - the Sony Playstation. Research and development for
the PlayStation had began in 1990....Only two hundred models of the
first Playstation (that could play Super Nintendo game cartridges)
were manufactured by Sony. The original Playstation was designed as a
multi-media and multi-purpose entertainment unit. Besides being able
to play Super Nintendo games, the Playstation could play audio CDs
and could read CDs with computer and video information as well."

from: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_playstation.htm

Sirius & James might have been too old for Star Wars - they are my
brother's age and brother was at that too-kewl-for-sci-fi stage at 17
(1977) I wasn't - I was 12 :) but when Empire came out in 1980, I
almost missed it in the theaters because I was starting that stage
myself. By the time Jedi came out in 1983, I was back on the
bandwagon :)



colebiancardi
(who is glad that I am at an age where I don't care what other people
think about my hobbies)
















From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 17:14:31 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:14:31 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape (was Re: Snape's Grudge)
In-Reply-To: <dkt9oe+ejur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktapn+rkf4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142727

>  > Alla:
> <SNIP>
> > Woudn't you agree that Snape did what ANY half decent person was 
> > supposed to do after such person realised that being a member of 
> > terrorist organization is very very WRONG?
> 
> 
> Montavilla:
> 
> Maybe any half-decent person ought to do what Snape did in 
returning to Dumbledore, 
> but it isn't necessarily an easy thing to do.  <SNIP>


Alla: 

Actually, I did not say that it was an easy thing to do, I just 
argued that it is not necessarily heroic thing to do. You know, of 
course it IS hard to turn away from evil, but since the person made a 
choice to turn TO evil in the first place, I do think that  it is a 
simple decency to try and pay one's debts.


Montavilla:
> Did Snape gain all that much from returning to Dumbledore?  He got 
a job and a place to 
> live during the school year out of it.  

Alla:

Erm... YES, IMO. He got a place to live, a paying job INSTEAD of 
facing Dementors in Azkaban, where I think we could agree he had been 
heading had Dumbledore not vouched for him. I think he gained an 
awful lot from returning to Dumbledore. JMO, of course,


Montavilla:
If he's DDM!Snape and Voldemort finds out for sure, 
> then he's earned a very painful death.

Alla: 

Yes, of course.


Montavilla:
If he's LVM!Snape (as he certainly appears to be 
> now) and the Ministry catches him, he'll get Azkaban for life at 
least.  Even before killing 
> Dumbledore, he'd get Azakaban for life, like any other Death Eater.

Alla:

How is it connected to Snape returning to Dumbledore? If Snape IS 
still a DE, that is his choice, no? I meant if he was sincere when he 
came back to Light, then he gained an awful lot. If he was sincere 
when he said " spinned him a tale of deepest remorse", then I'd say 
whatever punishment catches up with him, it still will not be severe 
enough. IMO only of course.



Montavilla:
> If ANY half-decent person would defy their own colleagues and 
bosses to do the right 
> thing, then there would be a lot less casual evil in the world.  
Yes, they should.  We all 
> should.  But very few do.

Alla:

But  defining casual evil does not mean that you were an evil person 
in the first place, IMO. It seems to me that it is not that casual if 
you turned to Grand evil first. Am I making sense or not much?

JMO,

Alla






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 13:00:20 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:00:20 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <1aa.42d66b31.30a10f15@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dksrt4+3jrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142728

szehms:

> JKR stated in the Leaky Cauldren interview that instead of asking 
> how Harry was saved, she has already given us this answer Lily's 
> simple act of love saved Harry, we should be asking WHY LILY WAS 
> GIVEN A CHOICE...No one prior to Lily was allowed to 'step aside', 
> so the real question is not What saved Harry, but why was LV willing 
> to save Lily?


Lily was not a threat. Lily was a minor nuisance. Very minor. Like an 
ant on your picnic blanket. You might squash it if you felt like it, 
but you're just as likely to flick it back into the grass. Or else 
Voldemort just wanted to torment her by killing her son in front of her.

MercuryBlue








From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 17:28:29 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:28:29 -0000
Subject: Lupin in Book 7 (Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters...)
In-Reply-To: <dks1it+3dpp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktbjt+iavg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142729

> Jen: 
> Harry will gladly hand over the house to Lupin and Tonks 
> permanently if they'll accept it.

Christina:

SO GLAD somebody brought up Lupin specifically.  I actually think that
he would see 12GP in much the same way Harry would.  I think he'd be
too reminded of the time he spent there with depressed!Sirius.


Jen:
> Why else did JKR leave the last Marauder standing if not to help 
> bridge the gap between the past Harry is finally exploring and the 
> onerous task he has left to accomplish?

Christina:

When asked whether JKR would write a "prequel" series about the
Marauders, she said no because after this series is done, we'll know
everything there is to know about them.  I am convinced that Lupin
will be playing a role in relaying this information (because really,
who else can?).

Jen:
> I expected to see 
> this relationship develop in HBP, then realized it made perfect 
> sense to shunt him off to the werewolf camp with nary a letter, so 
> Harry could focus on Dumbledore bonding.

Christina:

Ditto.  While I was reading, I kept saying "where the heck is Lupin?"
but by the end it made a bit of sense.  The werewolf thing seemed
super plot device-y.  I think that keeping Lupin away from Harry in
HBP served two purposes: an opening for Harry to get much closer to
Dumbledore, and it separated Harry from somebody that knows a *lot*
about his past that he (and we) aren't allowed to know about yet.

Jen:
> There's so much Lupin can do for himself and Harry in this one *Rubs 
> hands togther with anticipation*. For starters, he could go to 
> Godric's Hollow with Harry, to put his own ghosts to rest as well as 
> fill Harry in on vital information such as why Sirius/James 
> suspected him to be the spy, Lily's and James' funeral, and perhaps 
> even give us the final piece of information JKR promised about the 
> Prank.

Christina:

YES.  There's no way Harry can go to GH alone (he doesn't know his way
around, and it's much too dangerous), and I think that it would be
awkward and out-of-place for Hermione and Ron to be there with him. 
Putting Harry and Lupin together for GH could kill about a billion
birds with one stone, which is attractive considering how much needs
to be packed into book seven.  I see Lupin as the most tragic figure
of the entire series (sorry, Harry), and I'd love to see him lay his
demons to rest.  I think that facing GH together would be a nice
bridging of the two generations.  Talking about James seemed to cheer
Lupin up in HBP, so I think he would be very receptive to Harry's
questions about his folks.  I also think that Lupin will want to take
more responsibility for Harry now that both Sirius and Dumbledore are
dead (I think he would have done so in HBP had he not been shipped off
to the werewolves).

> Jen:
> I'm waiting for Lupin to reveal himself as a Legilimens & find out 
> how that figures into the plot <snips examples>

I agree, and I think there are tons of instances in which Lupin seems
to be a bit extra-perceptive.  I wish we knew whether Legilimency was
more a learned skill or a natural talent that can be developed.

> Jen:
> I *think* his skill will help Harry understand the scar connection 
> and perhaps, as we debated in the possession thread, any other 
> powers Voldemort transferred to Harry such as possession and/or 
> legilimency.

Christina:

I've never thought of that before, and I like it because I feel like
Harry still doesn't have enough information to know what to do when
the "final showdown" occurs.

> Jen:
> ...and why he had that battered case for his 'first' teaching gig, 
> while JKR is at it.

Christina:

I've been wondering that for a long time.  Why bother to have him have
a case with his name on it all?  Was it really necessary to the plot?
 It has to have some sort of significance, although I think this bit
of backstory might be type of thing JKR will feed us after all of the
books are finished.  I figure she has some kind of cute little story
about it that won't make it into the books (it's a really battered
case- maybe the Marauders gave it to him long ago as a sort of funny
gift?).


> Jen:
> Oh, and finally, Lily. I was so hoping a woman friend would fill us 
> in on her, but they all seem to be dead or insane at the moment :(

Christina:

When Slughorn first mentioned her, I said to myself, "finally!" but
not much came out of that, which only reinforces the idea that there
are Super Top Secret things about Lily that we can't know until the
seventh book.

> Jen:
> Nope, Lupin will be the one--I'm convinced after JKR made the 
> comment "Lupin was very fond of Lily, we'll put it like that, but I 
> wouldn't want anyone to run around thinking that he competed with 
> James for her."

Christina:

Lupin and Lily were prefects together before she started to date
James.  Lupin is polite, unassuming, and puts time into his studies,
and I definitely could see why Lily would like him (I can just see her
running into Lupin in the library or after a meeting or something and
saying, "You're such a decent person, Remus, why do you run about with
those arrogant bullies?").  


> Jen:
> Yep, Lupin loved Lily I think, although in a very platonic way. It 
> wouldn't surprise me to find out he was 'that awful boy' Petunia 
> referred to, visiting Lily over summers as a friend before she and 
> James got together.

Christina

I agree on the platonic love part, but I'm actually convinced that the
"awful boy" was Snape, just because I have difficulty accepting
Petunia describing any of the Marauders in that particular way.  Even
Lupin is so civil and polite that I think Petunia would have chosen
some other sort of adjective.  I think that Snape, with his long
greasy hair and rough edges, would be much more likely to be described
as "awful."  And I think that he would probably be the one who would
actually know about Dementors.


Christina






From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 18:40:49 2005
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:40:49 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
Message-ID: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142730

I joined this list shortly after HPB was released.  During this time, 
I have made a couple of observations.  Please don't take these 
comments and questions the wrong way.  I am not attempting to single 
out any list members or belittle your opinions.  I am really just 
curious.  

I would like to start by stating that I am not a literary expert.  
Other than the required high school classes and required college 
courses in composition and literature while obtaining my engineering 
degree, I have no formal training to be classified as a literary 
expert.  

The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability and 
style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature of some of 
the plot elements used.  I have also seen comments that JKR 
sacrifices character development to move the plot along.  At the 
other end of the spectrum, I have read that some feel that the plot 
follows the standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely and 
that she should be more original.  My question is:  If you feel these 
books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline 
development perspective, why do you read them?

I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you 
read the books?

ibchawz






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 18:13:46 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:13:46 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: HBP 3, WILL AND WONT
In-Reply-To: <dkp3dn+ar7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkte8q+3n5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142731

Ravenclaw Bookworm:
> Q6: We later see the inferi that Voldemort left in the cave. In
> what way do you think the DEs might *currently* be using inferi?
> 
> What use could one have for a zombie?

Dead people are supposed to stay lying down. The walking dead are, 
therefore, terrifying.

> *Lightbulb* - Were the dead at the Bridge Inferi, placed for the 
> purposes of making the Muggle world believe there had been carnage?

Not terribly likely. The fewer Muggles the better, according to the 
Death Eater mindset. The point was to prove they could carry out 
their threats, case in point being the threat of a mass murder if 
Fudge didn't step down in favor of Voldemort. Those were actual 
deaths of actual people who happened to have the misfortune of being 
right there right then.

> Q11: Is this just Vernon's normal reaction, or is it something more
> significant?
> 
> Seems to me as if Vernon may be thinking that he could now be 
> repayed for all the time he has looked after Harry with no further 
> significance.

I keep seeing this scene playing in my head where Harry arrives at 
the Dursleys' and Vernon immediately demands Harry's house as 
compensation for all those years of having to feed, clothe, and 
house Harry's ungrateful arse. My opinion is that if such happens, 
Harry should give it to him (along with all the nasty surprises that 
haven't been gotten out yet) as fair compensation for all those 
years of next-thing-to-starvation, worn-out hand-me-down clothing 
that's far far too big, having to sleep in the cupboard under the 
stairs, and all the other varieties of abuse inflicted on Harry's 
unfortunate head.

MercuryBlue










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 19:03:05 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:03:05 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkth59+bt3u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142732

Ibchawz wrote:
<snip>
> I would like to start by stating that I am not a literary expert.  
> Other than the required high school classes and required college 
> courses in composition and literature while obtaining my 
engineering 
> degree, I have no formal training to be classified as a literary 
> expert. 

Alla:

Heee! I have no formal training to  be classified as literary expert 
either, except receiving quite in depth education on literature (even 
if a lot of this literature was very... ideologically oriented) while 
in middle school and high school ( for seven years, three or four 
times a week with very good teachers) and of course reading, reading, 
reading had been my favorite hobby all my life. Right, now when we 
are done with classifications, off to your questions.

 
Ibchawz: 
> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability 
and 
> style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature of some 
of 
> the plot elements used.  I have also seen comments that JKR 
> sacrifices character development to move the plot along.  At the 
> other end of the spectrum, I have read that some feel that the plot 
> follows the standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely 
and 
> that she should be more original.  My question is:  If you feel 
these 
> books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline 
> development perspective, why do you read them?

Alla:

Well, my answer to that would be simple enough, I suppose. I would 
agree with you IF the person find NOTHING at all to enjoy in HP books 
and  his/her overall opinion about the books is only negative, then 
indeed I AM surprised as to why such person continues to read the 
books.

BUT if person is critical of certain aspects of plot development, 
character development, while enjoying the other aspects, then I see 
nothing strange or unacceptable of being critical of the books.

In fact, I think it is a very great testament to JKR that fans care 
about her books so much that they would think that something is not 
written up to her usual standards.

Take myself, for example - I enjoy the books immensely, but I enjoy 
OOP significantly less than all other books for many reasons I stated 
in my posts. Does it mean that I am less a fan than someone who 
enjoys every word in  the books unconditionally? I don't think so. I 
care about characters a great deal, but I don't think that it should 
stop me from being critical sometimes. :-)



Ibchawz: 
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
> Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
> amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do 
you 
> read the books?


Alla:

Hmmm, again I partially agree with you. I mean, I DO understand that 
fans read because they care about characters other than Harry. And if 
let's say one cares about I don't know, Draco, but could take or 
leave Harry's character, that I can understand.

BUT what I don't quite understand if someone not just indifferent to 
Harry, but hates his character, then I am not sure how one can get 
complete aesthetical enjoyment out of the books, because with every 
next book the story narrows down to being Harry's story and for the 
most part Harry's story only (IMO of course) and all other characters 
are pretty much supporting players and their character development 
only goes as much as it needed for Harry's story.  If you hate Harry 
and IMO narrator's voice never fails to convey the sympathy for him, 
even when Harry does stupid things, I am again not sure whether you 
are not missing some important themes in the story

Just my opinion of course,

Alla.






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Wed Nov  9 19:30:09 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:30:09 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktio1+gph9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142733

Ibchawz wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability and 
> style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature of some 
of 
> the plot elements used.  I have also seen comments that JKR 
> sacrifices character development to move the plot along.  At the 
> other end of the spectrum, I have read that some feel that the plot 
> follows the standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely 
and 
> that she should be more original.  My question is:  If you feel 
these 
> books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline 
> development perspective, why do you read them?
> 



Well it isn't much of an investment, now is it?  A JKR book reads very 
fast and can be easily assimilated.  Dostoevsky she's not, nor 
Shakespeare, nor even Camus, even on her best days.  So devoting a 
Saturday afternoon to the task isn't much of a sacrifice.  Nor are a 
few list posts in the cracks and corners of a busy and tiring day much 
of a sacrifice.

It is true that OOTP was, IMO, an utter disaster, and HBP found me 
losing 90% if my respect for JKR's writing skills as she essentially 
dealt with the issues raised by OOTP by firmly turning her back on 
them, closing her eyes, sticking her fingers in her ears, and 
screaming "LA! LA! LA!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU OOTP ISSUES!  YOU NEVER 
HAPPENED!" at the top of her lungs.  

However, there is the promise of her earlier books -- a promise that 
she may yet live up to, although I really doubt it.  Given her dismal 
performance in the last two books, I expect her to resolve most of her 
plot by waving her hands, introducing a couple of extaordinarily 
cheesy and poorly written plot-contrivances, and saying "Okay, all 
done!" while three-quarters of the issues she has raised and the plot 
holes she has opened remain like gaping self-inflicted wounds.

But, as I said, the investment of both time and money is extremely 
minimal, and the promise remains -- however unlikely it is that it 
will ever be realized.

Lupinlore










From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 18:57:18 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:57:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Protection Lost at 17???/ Apparition before being 17
In-Reply-To: <dkqoqd+lt04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktgqe+mbb9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142734

Tyler:
> Wizarding World children may become adults at 17 for a magical 
reason--
> childhood protection charms may cease to have affect at that point.  
> Seventeen is the age when they are allowed to Apparate and do more 
> sophisticated magic, but maybe there are magical constraints that 
> prevent children from Apparating before 17.  Think about how 
difficult 
> it would be to corral preschoolers if they were Apparating 
> everywhere.  Certain stronger magics may have built-in childlocks.



Funny, I seem to recall a fair number of not-yet-seventeen-year-olds 
learning to Apparate in Hogwarts's Great Hall. Case in point: Harry.

Corralling preschoolers is just plain difficult. With or without 
Apparation or childproof gates. Apparition is probably beyond the 
capabilities of your average child, as they don't yet have the sense 
of This-is-Me that is apparently required to get to your destination, 
and it's certainly beyond their capability to focus magic as they 
don't yet know how.

And how would you build a child lock into a spell?

MercuryBlue









From zehms at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 19:18:33 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:18:33 EST
Subject: What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <1a0.40bff430.30a3a589@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142735


MercuryBlue:
Lily was not a threat. Lily was a minor nuisance. Very minor. Like an 
ant on your picnic blanket. You might squash it if you felt like it, 
but you're just as likely to flick it back into the grass. Or else 
Voldemort just wanted to torment her by killing her son in front of her.


Zehms:
Actually I think Lily was very significant, and much more than a minor 
nuisance.

JKR is telling fans to ask the question, 'why was Lily given the choice that 
no previous wizard has been given?' I think her choice is a profitable line of 
inquiry and I think the reason she was given a choice is a vital piece of the 
plot-were the answer to that question unimportant JKR would not have told 
Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldren that it was significant.

Here is the direct quote from Leaky Cauldren:


ES: This is one of my burning questions since the third book - why did 
Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually have let her live?
JKR: Mmhm.
ES: Why?
JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer, you're absolutely right. 
Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? There?s 
your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she could have 
lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do you see what I 
mean? I?m not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to protect his 
family but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he wasn't given a 
choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way, I think there are 
distinctions in courage. James was immensely brave. But the caliber of Lily's bravery 
was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself. Now 
any mother, any normal mother would have done what Lily did. So in that sense 
her courage too was of an animal quality but she was given time to choose. 
James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering your house, isn't it? You would 
instinctively rush them. But if in cold blood you were told, "Get out of the way," 
you know, what would you do? I mean, I don't think any mother would stand 
aside from their child. But does that answer it? She did very consciously lay down 
her life. She had a clear choice -
ES: And James didn't.
JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear 
choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than that 
but that's most of the answer.
MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of 
Harry?
JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never 
happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could 
happen.
MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - ever gave someone a 
choice and then they took that option [to die] -
JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that particular way. 

Zehms.






From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 19:42:47 2005
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:42:47 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dkr3e3+ndc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktjfn+7j6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142736

Carol Wrote:
>
> We all know that the plot of Book 7 will require Harry (presumably
> with some help) to find and destroy four Horcruxes (locket, cup,
> Nagini, and something from Ravenclaw) and, ultimately, to confront 
and
> defeat Voldemort. [snip]> But what about the other (not so minor) 
characters, especially Ron and
> Hermione? 

Lyra:
Well, Carol, I read your post yesterday and set it aside to think 
about, and headed over the LiveJournal, where by an amazing 
coincidence I found in one of the Potter fandom newsletters a notice 
that someone was compiling a "masterlist of things JKR absoultely 
must answer in Book 7" 
http://www.livejournal.com/users/spritebmc/99356.html

Last I checked, spritebmc had listed 43 different things, with 
probably countless others listed in the comments tacked on. (I 
personally am not holding my breath to find out the 12 uses of 
dragon's blood or what happened to Sirius' motorbike, but apparently 
others are). And I don't think the list included some of the issues 
a lot of people really want to know about, including the details 
about the infamous "prank". I'm pretty sure people are going to be 
disappointed if their approval of Book 7 rests on getting answers to 
lots of little details.

Carol wrote:
What will Hermione do if she doesn't have the Hogwarts
> library at hand to do her research?

Lyra:
I'm figuring all three of the Trio will have their apparition 
licenses, so even if Hermione isn't stationed at Hogwarts, what's to 
stop a quick trip up to check the library? I think perhaps all that 
study she's put into ancient runes may come into play somehow as 
well. (In fact, it seems the Pensieve is always described as having 
odd symbols around the basin. I wonder if those are runes and if 
Hermione's skills might be useful in relation to using the pensieve 
to see some memory.)

Carol:> 
> So, what side plots (aside from Snape and RAB, which have been
> thoroughly discussed) really, really need to be resolved and what 
role
> will the sidekicks, subordinate heroes, and other minor characters
> (Luna, Neville, Dobby, Percy, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, 
Slughorn . . . . )
> play in resolving them? 

Lyra again:

After seeing how JKR goes thru a checklist and provides resolutions 
to side plots, I'm thinking I may be more satisfied if she just 
focuses on the big stuff. I'm absolutely lousy at making 
predictions, but it seems many of the minor characters are 
positioned to possibly help Harry in his main missions: Draco, for 
example, may have access to or knowledge of Dark objects or 
information that could come in handy in the hunt for horcruxes. 
Percy is positioned to intercept information from the Ministry if 
that is going to be his method for making up with with family. And I 
certainly hope Luna's faith in all things odd and wonderful will 
come into play. 

Neville, hopefully, will extract some measure of revenge against 
Bella, but from JKR's interviews, it doesn't sound like there's any 
hope for his parent's recovery. 


Carol wrote: > What themes other than choice and Love and where 
Snape's loyalties lie
> (house unity? wizards' attitudes toward other magical beings?) can 
and
> should be woven into the plot without extending the book to 800 
pages?
> 

Lyra:
Doing the love-conquers-evil theme is going to be the real trick 
here and the one I hope she manages to pull off well. After enduring 
SPEW and Hagrid's Tale, I certainly hope we'll see an improvement 
wizard's attitudes towards other magical creatures, and I think that 
can be handled within the major plot points. If most of the story 
takes place outside of Hogwarts, house unity may take a backseat.

> Carol, hoping we've at least seen the last of S.P.E.W.

 Lyra, who has no great love of SPEW but wishes all the best for 
Dobby








From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:19:40 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <dkpd8r+v5lg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051109201940.79576.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142737

carol wrote: 
"I think the place (12 Grimmauld Place) will be a bit less forbidding with Kreacher gone, and maybe Mrs Black will
stop screaming now that her renegade "blood traitor" son is dead. At any rate, friendliness is much less important than safety, and the house is presumably still protected by the Fidelius Charm even with DD dead. And of course, it belongs to Harry, which is also convenient, so I think they'll continue to use it. On a side note, I wish that Black had given the house to Lupin, who needs it, rather than to Harry, who doesn't." <snip a ton>

 

 

 CH3ed now:

I'm just curious about the status of the fidelius charm on 12GP since DD died. It seems to me the charm shouldn't life just because the secret keeper dies or murdering the SK would be the obvious way to break the charm. On the other hand, how would Harry be able to tell other people (who hadn't been told by DD) how to find his house? Harry isn't the SK. 




		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  9 20:26:25 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:26:25 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktm1h+qcrh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142738

"ibchawz" wrote:
snip
  My question is:  If you feel these 
> books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline 
> development perspective, why do you read them?

Potioncat:
In case I haven't already said it, Welcome. If I have already said it, 
please just smile and nod.

I've asked this question myself from time to time. The truth is, there 
are those who seem to approach JKR and her books as if she can do no 
wrong. There are others who seem to think she shouldn't be allowed near 
a pencil. And all who want to express themselves are pretty much 
welcomed here. (It's like having to play nice with everyone in 
Kindergarten whether you want to or not.) 

>Ibchawz 
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
> Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
> amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you 
> read the books?

Potioncat:
Here's where it gets fun! (or not) Sometimes, when a reader steps back 
and looks at the page from a different PoV, things look very different. 
So, for example, if you take Snape's PoV, you get a very different 
Harry. Sometimes we know that a PoV is mistaken and that leads to 
different interpretations on our part...or on the characters' part.

Anyway, that's my rather wearied view of the situation.










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:27:25 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:27:25 -0000
Subject: Polite Dumbledore - Assumptions of Courtesy
In-Reply-To: <005901c5e516$1ba904b0$0200a8c0@Sharon>
Message-ID: <dktm3d+22sf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142739

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "H.M.S" <h.m.s at m...> wrote:
>
> Sharon:
> ...
> Quite frankly - I don't care whether Dumbledore was being polite
> or not in his treatment of the Dursleys.  I LOVED reading this 
> scene!!! I actually thought that Dumbledore was being remarkably
> restrained. He came inside (invited or not) because it was TOO 
> DANGEROUS to remain outside ... Dumbledore could have shut the 
> Dursleys into the kitchen ..., instead of offering them a seat 
> and a drink. In effect, he was taking the role of the host, 
> which Vernon declined to be; and the Dursleys even refused to be
> gracious guests.
> Sharon
>


bboyminn:

Others clearly don't agree with you but I think you are taking a much
more sensible approach than most.

First, this is fiction, not everything exists to a real world
standards. I'm sure JKR meant this chapter to read humorously. Think
about your average TV sit-com; how realistic are they? Not very, but
they are usually funny.

I like your comment about Dumbledore coming in because it was
dangerous to hang around outside.  Expanding on that, I think if Harry
had told the Dursleys that Dumbledore was coming, they would have had
time to mentally prepare, and would have responded better; not
necessarily with courtesy, but at least, responded better.

However, opening the door late at night and finding a full-fledged
wizard in full wizard garb left Vernon a little dumbfounded; he really
didn't know how to respond. It was probably like his brain had jammed.
Dumbledore saw this and realized that Vernon was incapable of taking
even the most basic initiative toward courtesy, or toward moving
things along and getting it overwith. So, Dumbledore speeds things
along by saying 'let us assume you have invited me graciously into
your home'. If Dumbledore didn't take that initiative, things were
going to move VERY very slowly. 

Dumbledore is not their, the Dursleys, enemy. He is not there to hurt
them. Regardless of his feeling, Dumbledore always maintains an
outwardly polite and mostly non-threatening demeanor. He has every
right to be treated with the minimum degree of courtesy, the degree of
courtesy that you would afford any stranger. Though, admittedly with
Vernon, the minimum degree is pretty low. At bare minimum, he has the
right to be treated with indiference; but not with Vernon's stunned
inaction.

So, as I said before, Uncle Vernon is too dumbfounded to respond.
Dumbledore has other tasks that need to be accomplished that night,
and it is already late. So, Dumbledore and Vernon can stand there
staring at each other and things can move along at a snails pace, or
Dumbledore can take the initiative and move things along quickly so
that he and Harry can get out and get on with their night.

Further, and more importantly, JKR needs to move things along. She
needs to resolve a few plot point and get Dumbledore and Harry on to
their next adventure which is where the story really starts. I think
all the characters in that scene acted in-character, yet JKR is able
to move through all of the first three chapters very quickly. From a
writer's perspective, those first three chapters exist only to set the
scene and lay the ground work necessary for the central part of the
book to get started. JKR doesn't have time for a long dramatic scene
between Vernon and Dumbledore, so she speeds things along by having
Dumbledore make his verbal /assumptions/ of courtesy.

Really, try to keep these things in perspective.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn








From xcpublishing at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:38:41 2005
From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:38:41 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
Message-ID: <dktmoh+7sc1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142740

ibchawz writes:
>I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
>Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
>amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
>Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do 
you 
>read the books?

I read Harry Potter shortly after it became a "must read" and 
exploded across the face of the globe, merely for the sake of 
curiosity.  I was not impressed with the first book and frankly, 
couldn't see the attraction.  JKR didn't seem to be a particularly 
good writer, I found the characters to be a bit flat, the plotline 
was okay but not terribly gripping.  I read the second book and hated 
it.  The whole Tom Riddle thing seemed contrived and barely 
believable.  However, I love snakes and found the whole parselmouth 
thing to be an excellent idea.  Then the third book came out and I 
became a Potter fanatic.  Somewhere after the second book, JKR found 
her niche and became a decent writer.  I really enjoyed Prisoner of 
Azkaban and I *loved* Goblet of Fire.  The characters have grown and 
the plotlines have thickened.  Sure, there are plenty of mistakes but 
I consider a lot of them to be the fault of the editors.  It is the 
JOB of the editor to catch the things we catch on this list, but it's 
easy to see them skimming the book with dollar signs in their eyes 
and yelling, "It's great!  Print it!!!"  I saw this same thing happen 
with Stephen King.  The more money the publisher made, the more carte 
blanche they gave the author.  Unfortunately, this prevents them from 
making the novel as good as it should be.  Even great writers are far 
from perfect and they all need someone to tap them on the shoulder 
and say, "You know, this timeline isn't making sense."

Nicky Joe







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:40:06 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:40:06 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktmr6+gh8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142741

ibchawz wrote:
<snip>
> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability and
style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature of some of
the plot elements used.  I have also seen comments that JKR sacrifices
character development to move the plot along.  At the other end of the
spectrum, I have read that some feel that the plot follows the
standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely and that she
should be more original.  My question is:  If you feel these books are
so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline development
perspective, why do you read them?
> 
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.
Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious,
amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you
 read the books?

Carol responds:
I plead guilty to having a PhD in English literature and a
compulsively analytical mind, and I do sometimes examine things like
narrative technique (it bothers me when people refer to Harry as the
narrator and, like Harry with Quidditch terms, I like to get things
right), but that has more to do with *how* I read the books than *why*
I read them. Also, I try(!) to analyze objectively, examining plots
and characters and themes rather than to evaluate the books in terms
of how well they're written. IOW, I almost never pass judgment on
JKR's writing abilities, and I recently tried to distinguish between a
well-crafted work of fiction and a work that meets a particular
reader's expectations, which, of course, is a purely subjective
judgment and one that it would be impossible for JKR to live up to
even if it were desirable to do so. 

Also, I happen to disagree with much of what I perceive as JKR's
politics, but I try not to let that disagreement influence my
discussions of her themes and characters. What I want and expect is
thematic consistency (and I admit that I don't always find it, so I
confess to a degree of criticism there). What I don't expect is for
either the characters or JKR herself to share my political and moral
values. In fact, I'd rather see more understanding from certain
posters of the WW in general and the Slytherin subculture in
particular as something different from modern or postmodern Muggle
culture. The witches and wizards inhabiting the Potterverse can't
possibly understand, much less exemplify, values to which they've
never been exposed. (Tolerance for giants--not that anyone has
specifically proposed it, but it's implicit in the prejudice against
non-wizard magical beings motif--is a bit too much to expect of
anybody, wizard or Muggle. Not that I think the giants should be
killed off, but I don't want to see them attending Hogwarts in the
Epilogue. Grawp in Potions class--shudder!)

As for the characters themselves, analyzing a character's behavior and
motives has nothing to do with thinking that the book is poorly
written. Half the fun on this list is trying to figure out that "gift
of a character," Snape. Harry himself has considerably less
fascination for me (speaking only for myself, not for the list in
general) if only because he's so young, so half-formed, that I can't
identify with him. I'm much more interested in the adults,
particularly Snape. Which is not to say that I don't like Harry or
care what happens to him. I want him to learn to control his emotions,
realize that he can't defeat Voldemort through hatred, come to terms
with Snape, survive his ordeal with Voldemort, and live a normal life.
(You know, become Minister for Magic and have red-haired nine
children. :-) ) I absolutely *don't* want him to be a Horcrux and have
to sacrifice himself for the greater good. I don't care in the least
whether JKR violates the conventions of the heroic quest genre to
achieve that ending (the book is as much a bildungsroman as a heroic
quest, anyway). And of course I won't criticize her craftsmanship if
she doesn't give me the ending I hope for. (I might stop reading the
last two books if I don't get DDM!Snape and surviving Harry. But
that's purely subjective, nothing to do with how well the books are
written. I won't criticize her for it. I'll just be disappointed
because she hasn't given the characters I care about, characters that
she created, the fates I would have hoped for them.)

Why do I read the books? I got started on them purely by accident (a
friend recommended them and I recommended LOTR to him; we promptly
traded addictions.) It's an addiction, a compulsion, a fantasy world
that is and isn't like our own. (I've fantasized on occasion going to
Salem, picking up my witch ancestor's wand--not that she really had
one--and discovering that I'm a Muggleborn. <I hear those of you who
know me snickering.>) I would love to use magic (rather than computers
or red pencils) to edit manuscripts. And JKR's writing is so much
better than some of the blather I have to read for a living that her
world is an escape for me on a number of levels. And, of course,
there's that enigma, Severus Snape, who draws me like a magnet. 

At any rate, I think the reason that we discuss the characters so
passionately is that (the Dursleys and Hagrid and a few others
excepted) they seem so real, so human. If Harry and Dumbledore (and
Ron, Hermione, Snape, Lupin, MWPP and others) didn't have flaws, they
wouldn't be interesting. As for "criticizing" Harry in particular,
pointing out what we see as his failings and weaknesses and
misperceptions rather than concentrating on his strengths, who wants a
perfect hero? I don't. If he's perfect to begin with, how can he
develop and grow? How can he pass from Innocence through Experience to
Wisdom, to put it in Blakean terms, if he's already wise? We've seen
him learn some important lessons between age eleven and sixteen, but
he still has more to learn. I don't expect him to become Dumbledore at
seventeen (and, yes, I do see Dumbledore as wise though obviously not
omniscient), but I hope that Harry at least comes to recognize that
Dumbledore was right about death and choice and love and mercy--and,
above all, for me, trust in Severus Snape.

The books reward rereading on many levels. They are rich in mystery
and ambiguity and in themes that most of us hope will be fully
developed (and clarified) in Book 7 as the various subplots and
character arcs are resolved. But in the long run, I think, it's the
characters that engage most of us. We like them and their company. We
empathize with one or more of them. We care about them. (I cry for
Cedric and his parents every time I read GoF and I agonize for Snape
as he agrees to take the UV.) Some books are more than words on paper.
They're our friends. They're part of our being. And the HP books are
that for me, whether or not they're destined to become literary
classics. I rather think that they'll become not the LOTR but the
"David Copperfield" of future generations. And I'm glad, very glad,
that my friend introduced me to them.

Carol, who forgot to mention the humor, which pops up in unexpected
places in every book (the Rotfang Conspiracy being my all-time favorite)






From lealess at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:42:58 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:42:58 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktm1h+qcrh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktn0i+3tnr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142742

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" <ibchawz at y...> wrote:
>
> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability and 
> style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature of some
> of the plot elements used.  I have also seen comments that JKR 
> sacrifices character development to move the plot along.  At the 
> other end of the spectrum, I have read that some feel that the plot 
> follows the standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely
> and that she should be more original.  My question is:  If you feel
> these books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and 
> storyline development perspective, why do you read them?
> 
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
> Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
> amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do 
> you read the books?
> 
> ibchawz
>

I read the books for one thing: character.  I read for the character
of the wizarding world, which is fascinating.  I read for the complex
characterization of those who act within that world.

The plot doesn't really matter to me, except as an explanation of how
the characters got to be the way they are and perhaps to predict how
they will behave in the future, or at least as a means to understand
their actions.  Other literary devices, the parallels to alchemy, the
Tarot, the mystery elements
 all of those are interesting, but I
honestly don't have the time to delve into those topics to do them any
justice, let alone participate in discussions about them.

It is the characters, their motivation and actions, which keep me
coming back to the HP books.  I like that the characters in the book
are complex.  I do not automatically see them as good or bad (except
Umbridge and Greyback).  Harry, most of all, as a developing
character, is the most interesting to read about.  He has many facets
to his personality.  I do not see him as bad; he has the same struggle
everyone faces with character traits that could limit his development
if he indulges in them, or could save him if he holds to them.

I think it's a tribute to the skill of Rowling's writing that she has
created such captivating characters, capable of generating endless
debate.  And, of course, through the characters, readers question what
is important in their worlds.  I will be reading the seventh book to
find out what happens to the characters, Harry and the wizarding world
most of all, and really for no other reason
 well, except perhaps for
the humor.  They can be funny books.

Thanks for the great question,

lealess






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:57:47 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:57:47 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkrpbn+72qg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktnsb+hdne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142743

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Justin" <downtownnac at y...> 
wrote:
... no one has mentioned Borgin or 
> Burke (I might be wrong in the spelling) the owners of the Dark 
Magic 
> item shop. Riddle worked for them for a time, and they are both 
> knowledgable about all kinds of dark items. Who's to say they didn't 
> snatch the thing to sell?

Goddlefrood says:

Caractacus Burke does not fit with the initials. Borgin may and has 
been speculated on. One of the editorials on Mugglenet mentions him 
and sets out reasons as to why it could be Borgin.

>From my reading of canon Borgin does not seem the type, but then many 
of us have been wrong before. He is certainly familiar with curses and 
would most likely be familiar with Horcruxes. In fact he would be a 
prime candidate to have taught LV about how to encase a Horcrux in an 
object. If this is then the case it is unlikely that he would say in a 
note to LV that he has discovered the secret. Additionally he is still 
alive and there is no reason to suppose that the author of the R.A.B. 
note did not have a good reason for believening that he / she would be 
dead by the time LV read the note.

Filch could have been many things, but as a squib I do not believe 
that he was at Hogwarts any earlier than during the time of the 
Marauders. It is Mrs. Weasley who reminisces about the previous 
caretaker being there in her time.

Goddlefrood






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 21:28:09 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:28:09 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dkt1cm+rrk3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktpla+u1k4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142744

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
> <bawilson at c...> wrote:
> 
> > Now, one might argue that DD shouldn't have put Harry with the 
> Dursleys in the first place, or should have kept a better eye on 
> them during the first 10 years, but I'm sure that he had reasons for 
> doing what he did.  Harry would have grown up with a very different 
> personality had he grown up in more congenial surroundings; ...
> >  
> 

>Lupinlore:
<
> And once again we are right back into the very problem that JKR was 
> trying to rescue DD from by backing off of this whole issue.  Simply 
> put, such policies make DD an accessory to child abuse.  His 
> reasoning is completely and utterly irrelevant.  ...
> 
> ... DD's speech at the end of that book was  incredibly 
> ill-considered, and opened a can of worms that she tried 
> to shut very firmly once again in the third chapter of HBP.
> 
> Unfortunately, having made that misstep, it is very difficult for 
> her to recover DD's character fully into the mode I think she very 
> sincerely wanted to project.  She has to resort to handwaving and 
> tacit rewriting, ...
> 
> Lupinlore

bboyminn:

Well, I vowed never to get involved in 'Abuse' issues again; yet, here
I am.

I think you are all making way too much of this.

Here is the minimalists version of what happened-

Dumbledore had two choices-

1.) Harry could be comfortable and away from the Dursleys

2.) Harry could be safe from a pack of mad deranged Death Eaters who
were likely bent on Harry's torture and murder.

So ...comfortable ...or DEAD.

Seems like an easy choice.

Harry's life may have been unpleasant but he was alive and safe, and
miserable though that life may be, it is preferrable to the alternative. 

True, Harry could have lived with a wizard family and had some
reasonable degree of protection, but he would have also had a distinct
presence in the wizard world. I think Dumbledore thought it was far
better if the wizard world forgot about Harry Potter-the Boy, and
lived with merely Harry Potter-the Legend. 

Harry's presence in the wizard world would have been a constant
reminded to the Death Eaters who remained behind. Every time they got
together and got drunk, talk would surely turn to the annoying runt
Potter who was a constant reminder of their failure. Much too easy for
drunken conspiricy plots to be hatched if Harry has a presence in the
wizard world. Much too easy for thoughts of revenge to occur when you
see Harry toddling along Diagon Alley with his wizard family.

Dumbledore made a hard choice, one that even he concedes was a bad
choice, but bad as it was, it was also the necessary choice. There was
no other situation that afforted Harry the level of protection he
received from living in the presence of and under the protection of
his mother's blood. 

So, the choices were, Harry lives with his anti-magic uncle and
bullying cousin, or he is tortured and murdered by psychotic Death Eaters.

Seems an easy choice to me.

Now that it is over and Harry is safely at Hogwarts and has proven his
strength of character, I think that opens the door for Dumbledore to
look a little deeper, to express his regret for what Harry had to
endure, to consider and weigh the wisdom of his choices. After the
fact, there is plenty of room for regret and remorse, but before the
fact, there was one overriding priority that trumped all other
thoughts; 'keep Harry alive'.

Sorry, but I don't see any inconsistency in Dumbledore's character. He
made an terrible but necessary choice. One that he regrets but one
that given the same circumstances he would likely have made again.

One last note; I think part of the appeal of JKR's books is that
characters are not Pollyanna, Saturday Afternoon Special, Sunday
School Lesson picture perfect. Every character is flawed and makes
mistakes, and they have to struggle to do the right thing, and people
identify with that struggle a lot more than with letter prefect
flawlessly moral characters. 

Dumbledore made a hard and terrible choice, but a choice that none the
less HAD to be made.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn






From ornawn at 013.net  Wed Nov  9 21:41:40 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:41:40 -0000
Subject: Etiquette Shmetiquette (was Re: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?)
Message-ID: <dktqek+3f95@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142745

>a_svirn
>Well, what is his function? It's not like he has any right on Harry
>at all. He's neither his blood relation, nor guardian. In the year
>1981 he's not even his headmaster.

Orna:
I don't know for sure, but his function seems to be to give pupils 
and people the opportunity to develop themselves for what they are.  
I mean, there is a question of how he accepted Riddle to school, 
knowing how he had acted towards the other children, and towards DD 
himself. Even after the chamber of secrets had been opened, and a 
pupil had been murdered, he kept an eye on Riddle, but really not 
much more.. It is indeed very minor intervention, and in standard of 
how things should be run in our world ? very substandard. (Not 
Verisatrum, not much of Legilimency, just to mention things, even I 
as a muggle know by now
). So it seems, that either we say, it's a 
fictional plot, in which place it doesn't really matter, or that his 
function is indeed a more detached one, having to do, with 
presenting people with some mirror to their actions, and letting 
them choose their path of life. (Hoping they will choose human and 
loving abilities). I think that his dialogue with Draco, when he is 
seriously endangered, seems to show that, that's his priority. IMO, 
that's why Draco is surprised (sneering, perhaps, but asking) that 
he doesn't want him to use the mudblood word, and the other DE gets 
enraged about him "talking". "Always the same weren't yeh, Dumby, 
talking and doing nothing, nothing. I don't even know why the Dark 
Lord's bothering to kill yer!..." 
I have the feeling, that like the DE, we sometimes want DD to do 
something. So things will fall in place. But the thing about love 
and true emotions is they can't be hoodwinked, or shortcut. 


>Bruce Alan Wilson:

>DD could have frightened or coerced the Dursleys to be 'nice' to 
>Harry, but he
>could not have forced them to LOVE him. Love cannot be forced. What 
DD >was
>able to accomplish is to make the Dursleys think about the way they 
>treated
>Harry and to feel ashamed of it. While 'shame' has been given 
a 'bad >rap' the
>last couple of decades, it can be a good thing if it can impel one 
to >change
>one's behavior from what caused the shame. 

Orna:
I liked the way you put it. I also think that his behavior wasn't 
pure revenge (it's anyway a very minor revenge, compared with the 
pain they have inflicted on Harry.) It's a way of having them think. 
Had he been more revengeful, their outrage would have drowned the 
shame, had he been more "polite", it would have stayed as a false 
dialogue, at best (more probably, he would have just stayed outside.
 I want to add, that IMO too much politeness in the face of Bullies 
is very confusing, because sometimes saying just how things are, 
helps knowing good from bad. Harry had the right to hear in front of 
the Dursleys, what their treatment of him is called like. 
And he had also something new for Harry, when he said that Dudley 
was treated worse than Harry ? because Harry was sure to have envied 
Dudley, not recognizing that abuse can have many faces.  

Having said that, I must add, that after reading the various posts 
on the issue, I still don't like the Dursleys (who could?), but I 
have some more understanding feelings towards them: having to raise 
an "unwanted" child, representing their utmost fears, mocking by his 
mere existence the things they value above all ? respectability, 
order, and non-magic, non-imagination, is a very severe task. It 
would be nice, if they managed to change, but after all adjusting to 
such differences in values, temperament wouldn't be easy ? even if 
they were willing to grasp it as an opportunity. And it's true they 
didn't send him to an orphanage ?but the tragic thing, as I see it, 
for them and for Harry was that they stuck in between ? didn't get 
rid of him, and didn't move towards acceptance.


>Julie:
>I enjoyed seeing them get a little minor comeuppance, 
.The 
Dursley's >politeness is all veneer, a cover for their boorishness
>beneath.

Orna: 
Well, yes, it's a nice and not too destructive revenge. And having 
DD perform it, gives him his human perspective (along with his 
ability to fault) - human enough to enjoy some sweet and not too 
violent revenge. Makes him more human, less saintly, and same goes 
for me as a reader. 

Orna









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov  9 21:44:43 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:44:43 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dktaca+bf4u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktqkb+rncf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142746

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng"
> <MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:

colebiancardi:
> > > so I guess timeturners DO work with going into the future then?
> > > Argghh....I know, one liners aren't allowed, so I shall be
> obvious
> > > girl and state the HP books take place in the 1990's and LotR
> movies
> > > didn't come out until 2001.
> > >
> > > And I don't think Snape or Sirius are the type to see muggle
> movies :)

MercuryBlue:
> > Actually, the HP books take place in some vague 'a few years ago',
> as evidenced by the Playstation before there was Playstation and
> other such details. And can't you just see Sirius and James watching
> Star Wars?

colebiancardi:
> It isn't very vague - we do have timelines. Harry is born in 1980,
> so all of the events from SS/PS to HBP is from July 1991 to June
> 1997. Way BEFORE 2001 and the release of Lord of the Rings as an
> inspiration for Snape & Sirius to copy Aragorn's hair in the movie:)
> 
> And, cough, cough, Playstation was around in those ancient days 
> :-) "The history of the Playstation begins in 1988 when Sony and
> Nintendo were working together to develop the Super Disc.....In 
1991,
> Sony used a modified version of the Super Disk as part of their new
> game console - the Sony Playstation. Research and development for
> the PlayStation had began in 1990....Only two hundred models of the
> first Playstation (that could play Super Nintendo game cartridges)
> were manufactured by Sony. The original Playstation was designed as 
a
> multi-media and multi-purpose entertainment unit. Besides being able
> to play Super Nintendo games, the Playstation could play audio CDs
> and could read CDs with computer and video information as well."
> 
> from: 
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_playstation.htm
> 
> Sirius & James might have been too old for Star Wars - they are my
> brother's age and brother was at that too-kewl-for-sci-fi stage at 
17
> (1977) I wasn't - I was 12 :) but when Empire came out in 1980, I
> almost missed it in the theaters because I was starting that stage
> myself. By the time Jedi came out in 1983, I was back on the
> bandwagon :)

Geoff:
To back up colebiancardi's reply, there is absolute canon evidence as 
to the dates:

"Well, this Hallowe'en will be my fivehundredth deathday," said 
Nearly Headless Nick, dawing himself up and looking dignified."

(COS "The Deathday Party" p.99 UK edition)

'...in pride of place, an enormous grey cake in the shape of a 
tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
died 31st October 1492'

(ibid. p.102)

This was therefore on 31/10/1992 and, at this point Harry was 12 and 
in the second year so his birthdate is fixed as 31/07/1980.

With reference to colebiancardi's note about the LOTR films, what is 
not generally known is that the Ring on its chain was a skilfully 
disguised timeturner so that Aragorn and Boromir (or their actors) 
could nip back a decade or so....
:-)







From tonyaminton at gmail.com  Wed Nov  9 22:05:43 2005
From: tonyaminton at gmail.com (Tonya Minton)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:05:43 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
References: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <d4a040d0511091405i5c8f1378p3b238c13e4666330@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142747

On 11/9/05, ibchawz <ibchawz at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP sorry great post!!


 My question is: If you feel these
> books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline
> development perspective, why do you read them?
>
> SNIP


 If
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you
> read the books?
>
> ibchawz


:Now Tonya

 HI!! Big wave,
 I am not a literary expert but I do know when I read a book that I like and
I can pin point why I like it.
 Personally I was a bit slow to the HP band wagon, I got on board right
after POA. I started reading and I fell in love with the books because of
the place they take me too. It is WAY WAY far away from the real world. Some
people drink to get drunk, some people do drugs to escape....... Me, I admit
it, I read to escape. I have a wonderful life but after a long night of sick
baby (whom I love very much) and equally long days in the corporate world
running off to the WW is the best escape ever. Sure JKR may have made a few
little mistakes (IMO) and maybe OOP was really hard to read and reread
because I have meet people like Umbridge and I love Harry so it was hard to
watch him go through such a horrible year, again IMO, but I love it. I love
the underlying messages that JKR is sending me, every day I remember DDs
words "it's the choices you make that define who you are far more then your
abilities" HOW TRUE IS THAT?? Does that explain life?? YES for me and my
family and the way I was raised is all about making good choices. Do I
always make good choices...... NO..... but who does?? I strive everyday to
make good choices.... In OOP if I was Harry going through everything I would
not have been as confident and he was and I might have caved in just because
I had had enough of fighting with everyone on the truth. Does that make
sense??
 I also love the fact that JKR has changed the world with her books. Look at
all the kids who were out playing video games and are now reading (huge)
books. LOOK at us right now. Look at all these wonderful, smart, intelligent
people I get to spend time with that I would not have meet had it not been
for JKR and her Harry Potter. My life if richer because of JKR. TO ME-- I
have lots invested in the Harry Potter series, money, because I feel the
need to purchase 3 books every time they come out, time, wow if I billed all
the time that I have spent on reading and rereading and time spent on this
list, I would be VERY VERY rich.
 I also do not understand why people read the books if they do not find they
enjoy them. shrug-- I love them.
 Thanks for the GREAT question!! I really loved reading answers and thinking
about your questions myself.
 Tonya


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 22:14:26 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:14:26 -0000
Subject: Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <20051109201940.79576.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dktsc2+nb32@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142748

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M. Thitathan" <h2so3f at y...> wrote:
>
> carol wrote: 
> "I think the place (12 Grimmauld Place) will be a bit less 
> forbidding .... At any rate, ...the house is presumably still 
> protected by the Fidelius Charm even with DD dead. ...." 
> ...<snip a ton>
> 
 
>  CH3ed now:
> 
> I'm just curious about the status of the fidelius charm on 12GP 
> since DD died. It seems to me the charm shouldn't life (live?) 
> just because the secret keeper dies or murdering the SK would 
> be the obvious way to break the charm. On the other hand, how 
> would Harry be able to tell other people (who hadn't been told 
> by DD) how to find his house? Harry isn't the SK. 

bboyminn:

I think part of the key to understanding this is to look at the
definition of 'charm'. A charm can be a spell, or it can be an object
that has been imbued with magical properties as in an amulet.

CHARM - 3. A small ornament, such as one worn on a bracelet. 4. An
item worn for its supposed magical benefit, as in warding off evil; an
amulet. 5. An action or formula thought to have magical power. 6. The
chanting of a magic word or verse; incantation

So, we know that certain objects are capable of retaining their
magical proterties independant of humans. Many protective amulets, for
example, have far outlived their creators.

The Black House has been given every anti-muggle protection know to
man, that makes the Black House a Charmed house independant of the
person placing the charm. The same is true of Hogwarts. Hogwarts
Castle and grounds are a /charmed object/ and the magic the has been
infused into them is permanent.

In other cases, charm magic is not permanent, but is dependant on
external factors. It's more like a spell applied to an object rather
than magic infused into the object. Since Dumbledore is the charmed
object, the Secret Keeper, that protects the Black House with the
Fidelius Charm, the existance of that protection very much hinges on
Dumbledore's presence and his being alive. So, I personally believe
that the Fidelius Charm was broken when Dumbledore died. 

However, many many other protective enchantments continue to protect
the Black House. Many of which I'm sure date back to the earliest
Black ancestors who lived there. The Black House was made unplottable,
just as Hogwarts is, that has to be a charm the lasts beyond the life
of the spell caster. To me, Unplottable is one of those spells that
infuses an object with a magical essense, an essense that, thereafter,
is contained within the charmed object for as long as the object last,
or until it is removed.

Charmed objects don't have to be an either/or situation; it is most
certainly a /both/ situation. Some spells and charms end when the
spellcaster ends (dies), other are infused into whatever has been
charmed and last as long as the object lasts.

In conclusion, that is consistent with the Fedelius Charm. Remember,
that it is Dumbledore that is the charmed object. He has been charmed
with the secret of the location of the Black House, the Fedelius Charm
has not been performed on the House itself. When the Charmed Object,
Dumbledore, is gone/dead, the charm is broken.

You heard it here first.

STeve/bboyminn






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov  9 18:51:09 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:51:09 -0000
Subject: Life, death & Existing (was Managing Dead Sirius)
In-Reply-To: <dkp7n3+ri7b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktget+f6g8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142749

Lorrie:
> Suppose the does indeed happen. Harry / Voldemort pass on as it were,
> but instead of Harry 'returning' to this world he 'lives' in the one
> beyond.<snip>
> He would have a 'life' with his parents, his Godfather, all the rest
> of the family.
> Voldemort would no longer exist, therefor the 'WW' as Harry knew it
> would be saved.




What you're saying sounds a bit like some definitions of heaven. 
Namely, the life beyond is exactly like the life here but with all the 
lost loved ones and without all the minor inconveniences. Which would 
be wonderful if it's true, and fun to dream about, but we have no way 
of knowing whether it is true. Nor does anyone in the Potterverse. 
Even the ghosts, as Nick points out to us.

MercuryBlue










From bob.oliver at cox.net  Wed Nov  9 14:19:16 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:19:16 -0000
Subject: Standards of writing WAS:Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkr6sl+a15h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkt0h4+dk40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142750

> Carol responds:
> So if JKR, whom we know to be a Christian (and who has shown
> Dumbledore extending mercy to Draco and Harry preventing Black and
> Lupin from seeking vengeance) chooses Christian forgiveness ("and
> forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against
> us") over punishing characters for insensitivity or sarcasm, she's 
a
> bad writer with no idea how to craft a well-written and satisfying
> story? 

Lupinlore:
Absolutely, you have stated it exactly.  "And lead us not into 
insipid storylines, but deliver us from cheddar cheese preaching."

Carol:
I'd say, rather, that she has no intention of satisfying
> readers who thirst for vengeance, and that craftsmanship has 
nothing
> to do with the moral values implicit in a story.


Lupinlore:
Well, that's attempting to appeal to some objective standard of what 
makes for good writing.  The problem is that there is absolutely no 
objective standard for such things, despite all the thousands of 
pages that attempt to claim the contrary.  Writing is by its very 
nature utterly and totally subjective.  So yes, I judge JKR's 
writing subjectively, and make absolutely no apologies for that, as 
there is absolutely no other way to judge it.


Carol: 
> I'm perennially astounded by readers who see either the Dursleys' 
or
> Snape's treatment of Harry as worse than Bellatrix's Crucios or
> Umbridge's blood-drawing detentions. If we're wishing for 
vengeance,
> it should be against the truly evil characters, not against a
> magic-fearing family or a teacher who hasn't been taught that 
sarcasm
> is not a method approved by modern Muggle teacher colleges.

Lupinlore:
Well, Snape and the Dursleys ARE truly evil characters.  Snape's 
standing with regard to the war with Voldemort is completely, 
totally, and absolutely irrelevant.  As Alla and Nora have pointed 
out, ordinary evil is still evil, and if JKR does not clearly 
denounce it and show it being severely punished then, once again, 
she is a very poor writer who has absolutely no idea how to craft a 
satisfying and well-written story.  Snape, in particular, is so far 
into the darkness he couldn't find the light with a map and a pair 
of Zeiss binoculars, so, once again, I expect him to be specifically 
and severely punished for his unforgiveable behavior.


Carol: 
<snip>
> I think that if she resolves the main plot and the primary subplots
> without violating the laws of the Potterverse and maintains 
thematic consistency (as well as providing the excitement and suspense most of us are looking for) that she will have done all that is required for craftsmanship and a well-written story (assuming that the editors have also done their jobs in trimming stylistic infelicities).

Lupinlore:
Once again, not relevant.  There is absolutely no objective standard 
to writing.  All judgments are utterly and unchangably subjective, 
including what constitutes a "stylistic infelicity" 
or "craftsmanship" or "thematic consistency." 

Carol: 
> Satisfying to you and satisfying to other readers are not 
necessarily
> the same. I, for one, will be disappointed if Harry or any other
> character takes revenge on Snape, and I don't want the Dursleys, 
for
> all their faults, to be killed or Crucio'd by Voldemort. 
<snip>


Lupinlore:
You, of course, have a different subjective standard than I.  There 
is absolutely and utterly no way to get around that effect when it 
comes to writing.  The best one can do is engage in a political 
battle to forge a consensus of allied opinion.  But, since all of 
this is absolutely and utterly and unchangably subjective, I hold 
that I am utterly in the right.  If I did not believe so, I would 
change my opinions.

Carol: 
> As for Snape, what matters is surely where his loyalties lie and 
why
> he killed DD on the tower and whether he feels remorse and what 
role
> he will play in the battle against Voldemort. Any sarcasm or
> unfairness toward Harry is not only in the past but minor in the
> extreme compared with murder, mayhem, and war in the WW--all of 
which,
> IMO, Snape has been trying throughout the books to prepare Harry to
> face. Perhaps he was mistaken in his methods, but it's his motives
> that matter.


Lupinlore:
Absolutely and utterly "no."  Indeed, not only "no" but "(insert 
your favorite epithet) no."  Snape's motives are most definitely NOT 
what matter.  His methods are completely and utterly unforgiveable 
and indefensible, regardless of his intentions, and I expect that to 
be made extremely clear and severe punishment to be applied for his 
sins.  And once again, if he is not severely punished then JKR will 
have failed utterly as a writer in crafting a well-written and 
satisfying story.


Lupinlore










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 23:12:27 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:12:27 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktvor+r739@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142751

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" <ibchawz at y...> wrote:
>
> I joined this list shortly after HPB was released.  During this 
> time, I have made a couple of observations. ...
> 
> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability
> and style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature 
> of some of the plot elements used. ... that JKR sacrifices 
> character development to move the plot along. ... My question is:
> If you feel these  books are so poorly written from a character,
> plot, and storyline development perspective, why do you read them?
> 
>  ...
> 
> ibchawz

bboyminn:

Why do I read them? Because they are fun, because they are
interesting, and because they are stimulating.

As to /how/ I read them. When I read the books, even if it's the tenth
time, I just dive in and let the story carry me a long. I don't
analyse as I read, I just enjoy. The analysis comes later.

Here is a very odd and very personal test of how good I think a Harry
Potter book is. If my mind wanders while I am reading, then it is a
good book. I know that seems odd, but it is specifically what my mind
is wandering to that is important. If my mind wanders to other
interesting Potter storylines and various chapters of my own fan
fictions, then that's an indication that the book is very stimulating
and inspiring to me. If my mind wanders to random insignificant
thoughts, it's a sign that the book can't hold my interest.

So, while I read, I just read and enjoy. But after the fact, there is
room and time for analysing the finer points. No one and nothing in
life is perfect. JKR makes mistakes; she's human. As I have pointed
out before, we here and in the Fan Fiction world have unlimited plot
potential, we can imagine the plot going in any and many directions;
near unlimited choices. But JKR is on a path, as she gets closer to
the end of the series, her plot options become more limited, and I
think now she has very few story options and plotlines to follow.
Things have to be done in order to reach the end that must be reached.

Further, JKR is somewhat of a minimalist writer. Rather than inflame
her stories with long drawn out description of scenes, she simply say
enough to light the spark of imagination in us, and thereby, let our
own minds fill in the details. If you look at the intitial description
of Ron, for example, it is very minimal, just enough for us to fill in
the blanks. The first time I remember JKR describing Draco as a blond
was in GoF, yet prior to that, we all had very clear mental images of
what Draco looked like. This minimalist approach leads a lot of
critics to say that JKR is a primitive and unsophisicated writer. Yet,
the proof is in the reading, I know very clearly what everything in
the books look like, not because JKR described it in detail, but
because she caused my mind to create it. 

So, on the subject of on-line analysis, I can make objective
observations of the books, characters, plots, and author. I can find
fault and I can find things to admire, but even when I find fault,
that doesn't distract from my reading of and enjoyment of the books
when they come out.

Chris Rankin, the actor who plays Percy in the movies, said his
favorite books were 'Chamber of Secrets' and 'Half-Blood Prince'.
Oddly, those are my least favorite. I prefer PoA and GoF. I can
certainly find things to criticize about Chris's choices, but that
doesn't mean I am right, it only means that I have different
priorities, preferences, and view points.

We can argue whether the Dursley are truly abusive or not, and whether
Dumbledore is responsible for that abuse. And while discussion of the
secondary points may be heated, that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the
books as a whole.

In a sense, arguing over these fine points is a way that we each
refine our own view of the Potter world, and refining and debating
that view is a sparate issue from reading and enjoying the books.

Just a few (slightly random and rambling) thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 23:31:32 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:31:32 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkrips+37qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku0sk+stes@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142752

> >>Valky:
> There's obviously no changing your mind on that Betsy. ;D
 
Betsy Hp:
Oh, someone could change my mind.  (It *has* happened before. 
<shock, horror>)  Taking the route that Dumbledore was acting with 
true politeness is not likely to get the job done, however. <g>

> >>Valky:
> <snip>
> The fact that Dumbledore went himself to the Durselys and did      
> follow custom, which I am sure a_svirn can transcript from the    
> book he mentions, in announcing his arrival properly, assuming his 
> visit was recieved when no apologies were sent, arriving with the 
> sharpest possible punctuality, making proper introductions and     
> small talk - these are all evidence to he approach Dumbledore took 
> to the Dursleys. You're welcome to disagree, that's your          
> prerogative, I have given the strongest argument I can to the     
> point that Dumbledore did not come with a threat to overwhelm them 
> into submission.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not saying Dumbledore arrived with a plan to threaten the 
Dursleys into submission.  I'm merely saying that he was not polite 
within that scene.  Let's take it step by step, and let's throw in a 
comparison of Dumbledore's behavior here and Arthur Weasley's in 
GoF. [Page references for both GoF and HBP are for the scholastic 
hardback editions.]

1) Dumbledore  does *not* properly announce his arrival.  He 
communicates with a minor in the Dursley household, not with Vernon 
or Petunia [HBP 43].  And as such, his arrival surprises the 
household [HBP 45].

Molly Weasley, on the other hand, asks both Petunia and Vernon for 
permission to come collect Harry and waits to receive an answer [GoF 
30].

2) Punctuality is observed by Dumbledore [HBP 44], though he does 
arrive at a non-traditional visiting hour [HBP 45] without being 
sure of his welcome.

Arthur Weasley is, unfortunately, rather late [GoF 42].  And he 
arrives in a rather unique (for Muggles) way.  But he does apologize 
and makes it clear that he will fix what is damaged [GoF 44-45].

3)Proper introductions are not observed by Dumbledore.  He should 
not have arrived at the Dursleys home without first communicating 
with them. (I agree with Harry that exploding letters really don't 
count.)  The very fact that he has to explain who he is and what 
he's doing at eleven o'clock at night in the Dursley foyer [HBP 46-
47] suggests that Dumbledore did not observe the usual social 
niceties.

Molly Weasley, on the other hand, covered it all in her letter.  The 
Dursleys knew who Arthur Weasley was and why he was there.  (They 
were still frightened per JKR, "panic-stricken" "terrified", but at 
least they had *some* idea of what was going on [GoF 42])

4) Dumbledore's small-talk is practically non-existent.  He 
identifies the members of the Dursley household.  He chastises 
Vernon a couple of times, and then, after physically assulting the 
Dursleys, he talks pretty much exclusively with Harry [HBP 45-48].

Arthur Weasley *does* make small-talk.  He tries to connect with the 
Dursleys over his interest in Muggle things [GoF 46]. He 
speaks "kindly" to Dudley [GoF 47].  And all the while he is keeping 
things moving briskly so as to not overstay his welcome [GoF 45 & 
47]. 

Point by point, Arthur Weasley has Dumbledore beat.  But here's the 
crux, IMO.  I don't think Dumbledore *wanted* to be polite.  He 
wasn't there on a social visit, he was there on a mission.  So he 
*would* show up unannounced to the unpleasant Muggles, he *would* 
bully the Dursleys into doing as he wished, and he *would* make them 
sit down and shut up and let he and Harry get on with it.

Dumbledore wasn't polite, but I don't think he'd say he was trying 
to be.  You laughed at my mob boss reference, but I think the 
comparison is valid.  Not that Dumbledore *is* a mob boss, but he is 
using the veneer of politeness in a threatening or intimidating 
manner.

Arthur Weasley, on the other hand, *was* trying to be polite.  And 
other than being half an hour late (bad form, but not atypical for 
parents trying to wrangle their various kids together in my 
experience) I think he did a bang up job.

And here's the thing.  I enjoyed Dumbledore's rudeness for the most 
part.  His wit was amusing, and I enjoyed seeing Vernon get cut down 
to size and Petunia embarrassed.  It was the head banging that 
bothered me.  I thought it a bit beneath Dumbledore, frankly.  It's 
a bully's way of intimidation, and Dumbledore didn't need to resort 
to it, I think.  It was the step too far, for me. (I do like to 
think that Dumbledore was overcome with anger and behaved badly.  He 
loves Harry, in his way, plus there is that guilt a_svirn mentioned 
up-thread.) 

I did like his speech at the end, in that the Dursleys *did* treat 
Harry badly and it was nice to see them called on it.  However, 
Arthur Weasley's indignation when the Dursleys didn't say goodbye to 
Harry [GoF 48] was more powerful for me.  Probably because Arthur 
didn't lower himself to the Dursleys' level.  

> >>Valky:
> <snip>
> The Dursleys weren't that scared really, maybe you need to read   
> the passage again with fresh eyes...
> <snip of examples>

Betsy Hp:
Okay, well we have Dudley "gaping in astonishment and fear" 
and "scrambl[ing]" out of Dumbledore's way [47].  We don't see any 
reaction to them being manhandled, but the Dursleys do give each 
other "quick, scared looks" and deciding not to drink the mead 
[48].  Again, there's a large gap of ignoring the Dursleys (though 
Vernon does express a certain amount of greed over Harry's 
inheritance).  When we return to them, they are "cowering" [51].  

Kreacher's appearance causes Petunia to give a "hair-raising shriek" 
[51] which suggests at least a great deal of startlement on her part.

Again, the Dursleys are ignored for a while, Harry gets his things 
and is "disappointed" to return to the living room where a "thicker 
than cold custard" atmosphere is brewing [54].  I think it's worth 
noting that Petunia hasn't spoken since Dumbledore's arrival [54].  
She's intimidated at the least, and that does suggest fear to me.  
Especially since the Dursleys "drew very slightly together" [55] 
when Dumbledore addressed them again.

So, looking at the scene with fresh eyes I will say they don't seem 
truly terrified, especially by the end.  But I will maintain that 
they were scared.  Frankly, I think Vernon's lack of an imagination 
keeps him from being completely terrified.  He's too dull-witted to 
realize just how much danger Dumbledore could be to them, IMO.  (And 
note I said *could*, not that Dumbledore really *would* have 
unleashed on them.  Throwing them into a couch, knocking them over 
the head and chastising them was enough for the man, I think.) 

Betsy Hp (polishing off her LOON badge <g>)






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 00:10:41 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:10:41 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku361+7lbp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142753

> >>ibchawz:
> <snip>
> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability   
> and style. 
> <snip>
> My question is:  If you feel these books are so poorly written    
> from a character, plot, and storyline development perspective, why 
> do you read them?

Betsy Hp:
I, for one, do not think the Potter books are poorly written.  If a 
book is badly written I don't finish it.  I certainly don't struggle 
through six books, nor do I have a minor melt-down out of fear that 
the sixth book won't get delivered on time and make my husband go to 
the post office because I can't take the strain. <g>

I do, however, see some areas where JKR trips up a little.  For 
example, she doesn't, IMO, handle the character of Ginny very well. 
(She's a bit shaky on romance, period, I think.)  There are some 
parts of the various books that drag. (Hagrid's big adventure in 
OotP is one chapter I struggle to reread.)  Spinner's End gives 
Snape enough exposition to choke a horse.  (It's a good thing he's 
so damn sexy. <g>) But those areas are not enough (nor important 
enough to the plot, I think) to throw me out of her world.  In fact, 
I think I notice those things *because* I enjoy the books so much.

My sister had been bugging me to read the HP books for years (she 
invoked Mallory Towers, a childhood favorite in our family), but it 
took John Williams' movie score to push me over the edge.  (I mean, 
it was a *kids* book for crying out loud.)  Williams attracted me to 
the movie, and I decided to read the book before I saw the film 
(thank God).

Harry pulled me in. He was so delightfully *snarky*!  That "pig in a 
wig" line was priceless.  Snape made me stay. He also sent me back 
for an immediate reread, and then to the nearest book store for the 
next book in line.  [I think Snape pulled my husband in too (for 
different reasons, obviously, and not quite as deeply) because he 
commented when he reached the "Potions Master" chapter.  And I was 
like, "I *know*!"]

> >>ibchawz: 
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral       
> fiber. Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy,     
> rebellious, amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful,         
> incompetent, etc.  If Harry, as the main character, is really this 
> bad a person, why do you read the books?

Betsy Hp:
Because I've always preferred Goofus to Gallant.  I *love* that 
Harry has his dark side and is a bit of an idiot and is quick to 
judge.  Yeah, he frustrates the heck out of me at times.  But again, 
it's because I care. <g> 

Betsy Hp (enjoy this question and reading the various answers)






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 10 00:10:55 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:10:55 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktmoh+7sc1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku36f+su6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142754

> ibchawz wrote:
(snipped)
> > My question is: If you feel these
> books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline
> development perspective, why do you read them?

> ibchawz also wrote:
(snipped)
> >I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral 
fiber.  
> >Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, 
rebellious, 
> >amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  
> If Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why 
> do you read the books?
>

Lucianam:

Look, I seriously need the fun. And HP books have been so much fun 
(except for OotP which I loved but was NO fun) that I can live with 
the flaws. IMO JKR's books are full of them, but so far I've been 
able either to ignore them (Grawp) or to complain loudly about them. 
This last option has been much more rewarding (adds to the FUN! and, 
on a more serious side, gets you to know other people's opinions, 
too). 

Now, why do I think the books are so much fun that their flaws don't 
matter so much? For me, it's the kids and their teachers. The 
greatest literary merit of the HP series, in my opinion obviously, 
is the uncannily truthful portrait of Hogwarts's students and staff 
JKR builds book after book. I didn't fall in love with this series 
because of Harry (back then when I read PS/SS for the first time), 
it was Ron that did the trick. And Neville and Snape and Draco, too. 
I was delighted to just be able to see them and feel confident about 
how they looked, how they behaved, and talked, and how Harry saw 
them! They were tangible. In Snape's particular case, I loved how he 
was not 'the mean teacher' with a 'the', but just his mysterious 
Snape guy who happened to be 'a' mean teacher. He was not a 
stereotype.

Maybe what I wrote could be perceived as me not liking Harry: not 
the case!! I love Harry. I specially like that he's a normal kid who 
tries to do the right thing, and fails both at being normal (most of 
the time) and at doing the right thing (not many times, but hugely 
when he does). It's very difficult not to root for a kid in that 
situation. But I confess I have special, maybe bigger, love for some 
other characters (Ron, Sirius, Draco and Snape) - not because 
they're morally better than Harry but because I find them more 
interesting.

> Tonya wrote:

> I love
> the underlying messages that JKR is sending me, every day I 
> remember DDs words "it's the choices you make that define who you 
> are far more then your
> abilities" HOW TRUE IS THAT?? Does that explain life?? YES for me 
> and my family and the way I was raised is all about making good 
> choices.

Lucianam:

Although I loved this part of Tonya's post and also think some of 
JKR's messages have been wonderful, since OotP I lost my 'faith' in 
the series as a bearer of wisdom, and have settled for a fun, 
engaging read and interesting puzzles instead. I do not mean this in 
a bad way, at all. All I mean is I've changed my expectations, which 
is nothing so unusual considering this is a series that not only 
takes a long time to read (years between the books!) but also its 
readers are changing while it is being written. And the author as 
well, of course.

For me, as long as the main characters are still 'alive' (wow, the 
number of characters I consider 'main' is huge I'm afraid) I'll love 
these books.

> Nicky Joe wrote: 
> I read Harry Potter shortly after it became a "must read" and 
> exploded across the face of the globe, merely for the sake of 
> curiosity.  I was not impressed with the first book and frankly, 
> couldn't see the attraction.  JKR didn't seem to be a particularly 
> good writer, I found the characters to be a bit flat, the plotline 
> was okay but not terribly gripping.  I read the second book and 
hated it.  

Lucianam:

I also began to read it because I was curious. When PS/SS movie came 
out, I bought all four first books just before watching it. I read 
Book 1 before the movie and the other three in the following weeks. 
I was hooked. But I only got really, really addicted when I 
discovered the fandom. Three years of intense fandomization (!) 
online helped me wait for Book 5 - it was me and my sister then, 
reading our copies of OotP into the night... She woke me up at 3 in 
the morning in tears, well, you know.

I'm not such a huge fan now, in comparison to myself in those days, 
but I'm still big. Hopefully I'll stay like that until Book 7 and 
frankly I can't think of a reason why not. The flaws I see in the 
books are fuel for discussion, not reasons to drop the books.

Lucianam, joining the other listees in applauding a very opportune 
question!







From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 10 00:59:22 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:59:22 -0000
Subject: Beyond the Veil or not/ Nutcase WAS Re: Why does Kreacher have to obey Harry?
In-Reply-To: <dkobfv+u8ep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku61a+3to2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142755

> 
> > > Carol notes:
> > > > I think the fact that Kreacher has to do what Harry orders
> > > > indicates not only that Sirius's will is valid but that he
> > > > is truly dead.
> > > 
> 
> > Lucianam:
> > (snipped)
> > Just to stick to details, I don't think Kreacher obeying 
> > Harry's orders proves Harry is his rightful master. It doesn't 
> > prove Sirius is  dead, either.
> > 
(edited)

> > If Sirius is alive and for some reason he wants people to think
> > he is dead, all he has to do is, similarly, tell Kreacher to 
> > follow Harry's orders. ...
> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> (snipped) 
> 
> So, Kreacher obeying Harry is valid because, Sirius has left the
> mortal realm. In other words, he is dead by all earthly 
definitions,
> but we don't know what happens on the other side of the Veil. We 
don't
> know what rules apply there, and that opens the possibility for
> Sirius's return back to the earthly realm.
> > 


Lucianam:

I took ages to comment but I really wanted to answer your post, 
Steve. 
Well, when I answered Carol's post I was considering the possibility 
of Sirius being really alive. By which I mean, out of the Veil, back 
in the material world, assuming he's already escaped from the 
spiritual world. I didn't think of the possibility of Sirius 
communicating with Kreacher while still trapped beyond the veil - 
house elves are mortal beings (beheaded!) and there's no reason to 
think they'd be any better than wizards at talking to spirits.

I didn't elaborate on my post though. Maybe I should try, as the 
subject of Sirius-Veil-Coming Back or not? is so interesting, but I 
don't have anyhting up my sleeves really. My point is, I don't 
believe Kreacher obeying Harry proves Sirius is dead, because IF 
Sirius is alive (not beyond the veil anymore, but here, both his 
body and soul) he could be instructing Kreacher to obey Harry if he 
didn't want people to know he was back.

If JKR decides to write that - or better, if she has written that, I 
don't see why she couldn't have been it exactly like that. I think 
it would relate to the charade Dobby played on Harry in CoS, 
pratically denying the person who'd opened the Chamber was Voldemort.

> bboyminn also wrote:
(snipped)
> Also, keep in mind that Harry using Sirius's body in order to 
return
> from behind the Veil and into the earthly realm, only means that
> Sirius's body will return with Harry inside. Once back, after Harry
> abondons Sirius's body, Sirius could just as easily drop dead as 
not.
> So the return of Sirius doesn't necessarily mean his return to 
life,
> only his bodily return to the earthly realm.
> 

Lucianam:

Ah, the possession thread!! I read it, it's very very interesting. I 
don't know if I like it though, because as you might have noticed 
I'm a HUGE Sirius fan and I'd be disappointed all over again if he'd 
come back only to drop dead. 
I'm afraid of this theory, because it has foreshadowing in the end 
of OotP. Remember, Harry kept trying to find a way out of the 
reality of Sirius's death, only to be disappointed over and over. It 
was like watching Sirius die again and again, with the mirror thing, 
then Nick. 

In my opinion, it's almost an 100% chance that Sirius is dead or 
will be confirmed as dead in B7. It is a thing of wonder I still 
manage to convince myself there's a tiny chance and remain aboard 
SAD DENIAL.

For me, the reason the odds of Permanently Dead or Even More Dead in 
Book Seven Sirius are so huge is plot-wise. Harry must suffer 
personal loss, so it's either Ron, Hermione or Sirius who bites the 
dust. Hagrid and Dumbledore are in a different intimacy level, I 
guess, so I don't count them here. If JKR doesn't have (or lack, 
depends on your point of view) the heart to kill the children it's 
the adult - Sirius - who snuffs it, and there you are.

The only thing that I think REALLY doesn't fit in Permanently Dead 
or Even More Dead in Book Seven Sirius is JKR's reaction to the Book 
5 death. Why, oh why would she run down the stairs crying over 
Sirius? I have the hardest time believing she was talking about him, 
considering the very detached way she speaks about Sirius in her 
site and interviews. Of course she could have been thinking about 
Harry's suffering, or she might have had a moment of compassion (as 
she killed him!) or she was talking about someone else, about a 
character she likes very much. Since I don't worry much about 
looking like a nut I'd risk Hermione.

Lucianam






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 10 01:13:35 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:13:35 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dku0sk+stes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku6rv+itc4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142756


> > >>Valky:
> > There's obviously no changing your mind on that Betsy. ;D
>  
> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, someone could change my mind.  (It *has* happened before. 
> <shock, horror>)  Taking the route that Dumbledore was acting with 
> true politeness is not likely to get the job done, however. <g>

Valky:
HEEE! Fair point. :) Although I, of course, do think Dumbledore's
intent was to tame them with their own custom - a diplomatitic
approach which is in character for Dumbledore, I appreciate what
you're saying and I really feel like I should stop niggling about
these details now anyway. <g>

> 
> > >>Valky:
> > <snip>
> > The fact that Dumbledore went himself to the Durselys and did      
> > follow custom, <snip> the strongest argument I can to     
> > the point that Dumbledore did not come with a threat to overwhelm 
> > them into submission.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not saying Dumbledore arrived with a plan to threaten the 
> Dursleys into submission.  I'm merely saying that he was not polite 
> within that scene.  Let's take it step by step, and let's throw in a 
> comparison of Dumbledore's behavior here and Arthur Weasley's in 
> GoF. [Page references for both GoF and HBP are for the scholastic 
> hardback editions.]

Valky:
Okay, I'm game. :|

> Betsy:
> 1) Dumbledore  does *not* properly announce his arrival.  He 
> communicates with a minor in the Dursley household, not with Vernon 
> or Petunia [HBP 43].  And as such, his arrival surprises the 
> household [HBP 45].
> 
> Molly Weasley, on the other hand, asks both Petunia and Vernon for 
> permission to come collect Harry and waits to receive an answer [GoF 
> 30].

Valky:
I admit, that's a fair thing to say. I could tweak some of the finer
details of the process to argue for my point. I shouldn't because I
really intended not to squabble minutiae over this, but I should
because not proving this point blanketly undermines my argument
somewhat. Oh! The dilemma of it all... <bg>

Suffice to say that is was not wholly improper to send Harry the
letter, but I concede partially to your point that it was not wholly
diplomatic to leave Vernon and Petunia out of the supposed loop either. 


> Betsy:
> 2) Punctuality is observed by Dumbledore [HBP 44], though he does 
> arrive at a non-traditional visiting hour [HBP 45] without being 
> sure of his welcome.

Valky:
<g> Finally! I knew the non-traditional visiting hour would have to
come in sooner or later I am really surprised that it has taken so
long for someone to challenge it in this discussion. If I was arguing
for the other side, I must say it would have been my *first* point. <g>

I find this part amusing on my read of the chapter, especially while I
try to imagine Dumbledore being wholly diplomatic and customary in his
visit. The funniest part is that Dumbledore's letter states to Harry
that he will visit at this time if it is to Harry's convenience. That
is of course very proper format for an announcement except for the
glaring error of the time. I can't help but view it as a diplomatic
relations joke, lending to the sheer insightlessness of the WW into
the customs of their muggle counterparts. It is a very proper and
decent announcement and, for that, the 'at eleven pm' stands out like
a big red sore thumb in it. I am, perhaps, taking it all without the
required salt but it does seem to me to be the classic insider joke.


Betsy:
> 3)Proper introductions are not observed by Dumbledore.  He should 
> not have arrived at the Dursleys home without first communicating 
> with them. (I agree with Harry that exploding letters really don't 
> count.)  The very fact that he has to explain who he is and what 
> he's doing at eleven o'clock at night in the Dursley foyer [HBP 46-
> 47] suggests that Dumbledore did not observe the usual social 
> niceties.

Valky:
HEE again! You've really outdone yourself with the previous two points
Betsy. I am shot down in flames, to be honest. But even so, I can
answer this point directly because Dumbledore does make proper
introductions and small talk.

He starts with a spit polished address of Vernon. "Good Evening. You
must be Mr Dursley. I daresay Harry has told you I would be coming for
him?" 

At this point Dumbledore has not introduced himself but it is urgent
that they come inside so he does that first and then the introductions
are interrupted by Harry's arrival. Vernon then makes his little
threat of rudeness - how uncannily proving that is of my argument that
they were minding their manners I shouldn't say, right? - and finally
Dumbledore greets Petunia and properly introduces himself as Albus
Dumbledore of the previous correspondence.

I personally disagree with Harry that the Howler discounts this as the
truth, simply because we know that Petunia has recieved another letter
from Dumbledore and that letter must be of some significance to
Petunia for her to involve herself and her family in the magical world
of which they outwardly wish no part. I suspect that in this case
Dumbledore knows something, that Harry does not, about Petunia.

  
> Betsy:
> Molly Weasley, on the other hand, covered it all in her letter.  The 
> Dursleys knew who Arthur Weasley was and why he was there.  (They 
> were still frightened per JKR, "panic-stricken" "terrified", but at 
> least they had *some* idea of what was going on [GoF 42])

Valky:
IIRC the Durselys were panic stricken because people were appearing
out of their fireplace, and not precisely because Arthur was a wizard.
Am I right?

 
> Betsy:
> 4) Dumbledore's small-talk is practically non-existent.  He 
> identifies the members of the Dursley household.  He chastises 
> Vernon a couple of times, and then, after physically assulting the 
> Dursleys, he talks pretty much exclusively with Harry [HBP 45-48].

Valky
Dumbledore gives excellent small talk - "It has been a long time since
my last visit" and "I must say your agapanthus are flourishing." and
"..this must be your son, Dudley." all qualify and would win
Dumbledore favour at any high society ball. He 'can do' the small talk
- aside: I envy him that, believe me. <g>


>Betsy:
> Point by point, Arthur Weasley has Dumbledore beat. 

Valky:
With the exception that Arthur uses the Floo Network while Dumbledore
uses the front door. <g> Dumbledore's mistakes in his diplomacy IMHO
are along the same lines as Arthur's were ie 'glaring evidence that
they were alien to the custom they trying to follow', excepting that
Arthur made rather a larger mess of the house and inadvertently scared
them witless with his mistakes. Dumbledore's mistakes were just
annoying to them, but then Dumbledore himself was annoying to them
without having done anything so he has minimised the damage I think.


Betsy:
> But here's the 
> crux, IMO.  I don't think Dumbledore *wanted* to be polite. 

Valky:
You're right, that is the crux of this, because I most definitely
think that he was trying to be polite. If nothing else the dandiness
of his letter to Harry and small talk with Vernon brims with his
efforts to be thoughtfully polite.

Betsy:
>  He 
> wasn't there on a social visit, he was there on a mission. 

Valky:
I agree with that, and I say it was the reason Dumbledore eventually
took the firm hand and got the job done. But otherwise I am sure he
would have been a near perfectly behaved guest.

Betsy:
> So he 
> *would* show up unannounced to the unpleasant Muggles, he *would* 
> bully the Dursleys into doing as he wished, and he *would* make them 
> sit down and shut up and let he and Harry get on with it.

Valky:
Oh not at all. I really don't think Dumbledore planned to push them
around I think he expected them to dignify his good manners with the
least of reciprocation. He was wholly optimistic about them responding
to their own custom and civilty IMO.

> Besty:
> Dumbledore wasn't polite, but I don't think he'd say he was trying 
> to be.  You laughed at my mob boss reference, but I think the 
> comparison is valid.  Not that Dumbledore *is* a mob boss, but he is 
> using the veneer of politeness in a threatening or intimidating 
> manner.

Valky:
I apologise if I offended you by laughing Betsy. I cannot see the
comparison being valid myself. If we are talking about the traditional
Mob Boss screen caricature then I would say that the person you're
comparing Dumbledore to doesn't need the other person to act rudely or
intend to be rude to them before they chastise, but the Dursleys were
rude to Dumbledore, and they were *trying* to be as subversively rude
as possible. The mob boss caricature is a paranoid lunatic, but
Dumbledore really was being treated like dirt by the Dursleys, so the
comparison does not hold water for me.

I really have to get going as it is my shopping day and I am using too
much of it here. I do promise to answer your other points, Betsy, and
as always thankyou for the lively and interesting debate that you so
consistently deliver. :D

Valky









From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 10 01:16:56 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:16:56 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Time_lines_(was_Re:_CHAPDISC3:_HBP_3,_WILL_AND_WON=92T,_continued?=
In-Reply-To: <dkt44r+fju4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku728+2ep7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142757

> > Carol wrote:
> > As has already been noted, not just the first three but the 
first 
> four
> > chapters seem to take place at approximately the same time on 
the 
> same
> > night (and involve unexpected visitors in a different Muggle
> > location). 


Lucianam:

It might be fair to assume all four chapters take place in the same 
night, but we have evidence only of chapters 3 and 4 taking place in 
the same night - I agree with Potioncat on this.

Although it seems Chapters 1 and 3 take place at a very similar 
time, if you look at the news in Harry's Daily Prophet pages and at 
the eevents in Chapter 1; in Chapter 1 scrimgeour is already 
Minister, he's already had his 'rift' with DD which is printed on 
the news, the Vance and Bones murder have already taken place - and 
Harry has heard of them. 

I'd like to point to yet another timeline coincidence; in Chapter 
Sluggish memory, inside the memory, there's a clock chiming 11 
o'clock and we know it's in the evening  because Slughorn tells the 
boys to go or it'll be late and they might get detention. Could this 
mean something?

And something else: as Uncle Vernom said, why the blazes did DD pick 
such a late hour to collect Harry? Eleven o'clock in the evening 
really is too late to call. He possibly had a reason.

Musing...
Lucianam







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 01:33:31 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:33:31 -0000
Subject: Standards of writing WAS:Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dkt0h4+dk40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku81b+alb0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142758

Carol earlier:
> I'd say, rather, that she has no intention of satisfying readers who
thirst for vengeance, and that craftsmanship has nothing to do with
the moral values implicit in a story.
> 
Lupinlore:
> Well, that's attempting to appeal to some objective standard of what
makes for good writing.  The problem is that there is absolutely no
objective standard for such things, despite all the thousands of pages
that attempt to claim the contrary.  Writing is by its very nature
utterly and totally subjective.  So yes, I judge JKR's writing
subjectively, and make absolutely no apologies for that, as there is
absolutely no other way to judge it. <snip>


Carol responds:
As an editor and a former English teacher, I have to disagree. There
*are* objective criteria by which to judge good writing. In the case
of fiction, they include a fully developed plot in which events follow
logically from what precedes them; clear, concise sentences with
varied sentence structure; precise, concrete diction that enables the
reader to visualize the characters, setting, and action; realistic,
natural-sounding dialogue that fits the characters; and (most
important) memorable and distinctive characters. Various genres also
have specific requirements, which I won't go into here, in part
because the genre(s) to which JKR's books belong is a somewhat
debatable topic (and I think the editors probably give her a bit of
leeway for genre-jumping).

If I could do so without abandoning professionalism, I would quote you
some genuinely bad writing from a manuscript I'm currently
editing--extremely wordy sentences, the same phrases (e.g., "he reined
in his mount") over and over, pompous diction, unrealistic and
unnatural dialogue, stereotyped characters, unbelievable situations
(even given the fantasy genre) extended descriptions in purple prose.
This is not merely my opinion of what constitutes bad writing. Any
editor faced with this manuscript would do as I do (grit my teeth and
cringe) every time I have to face another page (and take frequent
HPfGU and refrigerator breaks). Any publisher would reject it if
submitted as originally written. (Actually, they'll reject it even as
edited because there's not a scrap of originality in it. You ask why I
edit it if that's the case? Because I was assigned the project by a
firm that caters to first-time writers and I get paid whether the book
is published or not. If this writer submits a second manuscript, I'll
ask the managing editor to pass it to someone else. It's *that*
agonizing to revise or just cross out the sentences.) If I had the
chance to edit a manuscript of JKR's, OTOH, I'd jump for joy. Her
characters live, her plots work (some, I'll admit, work better than
others). Her work, admittedly, is not wholly original (I'm not sure
that total originality is even possible), but the wizarding world
seems, in the mind of the reader (even you, right, Lupinlore?), to be
a real place. We forget as we read that it doesn't exist and neither
do the characters. Only a well-written work of fiction succeeds on
that level.

You are confusing the reader's personal taste with the author's
craftsmanship or lack thereof. I work in the field of book publishing.
I have a PhD in English. I know good writing when I see it and can
produce it myself when called upon to do so. (If I didn't, I'd be
fired.) And it has nothing to do with how I view the characters or
what I think should happen to them. "Well-written" (determinable by
specific criteria) is not the same as "satisfying" (a wholly
subjective judgment).

Carol






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 01:30:44 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:30:44 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku7s4+4k0e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142759

Ibchawz:

> The first issue I would like to address is JKR's writing ability and 
> style. I have seen comments regarding the contrived nature of some of 
> the plot elements used.  I have also seen comments that JKR 
> sacrifices character development to move the plot along.  At the 
> other end of the spectrum, I have read that some feel that the plot 
> follows the standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely and 
> that she should be more original.  My question is:  If you feel these 
> books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline 
> development perspective, why do you read them?


MercuryBlue:
Actually, we see plenty of character development, I've yet to see a more intricately interwoven plot, and this isn't a fantasy/hero's quest storyline, it's a series of school stories. Book Seven looks as if it'll turn that last bit on its head, but oh well. We'll deal with that when we get there.

If this series was poorly written, I would have given up after the first fifty pages. I usually do.


Ibchawz:
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
> Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
> amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you 
> read the books?


Harry is not a bad person. He is simply flawed. Human. As are we all. That's part of the attraction of these books, really. The protagonist is an ordinary person who finds himself in extraordinary situations. It gives us the idea that if this kid, this ordinary kid who's just like us, can do these great things, maybe we can too.

And I read these books because they're the kind of book I like to read. Granted, I've been known to read the dictionary if there's nothing else around, but still. And these aren't the ordinary killing-some-time books, either. They do make me think.

MercuryBlue










From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 01:57:42 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:57:42 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <1a0.40bff430.30a3a589@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dku9em+g1ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142760

> Zehms:
> Actually I think Lily was very significant, and much more than a minor 
> nuisance.
> 
> JKR is telling fans to ask the question, 'why was Lily given the
choice that 
> no previous wizard has been given?' I think her choice is a
profitable line of 
> inquiry and I think the reason she was given a choice is a vital
piece of the 
> plot-were the answer to that question unimportant JKR would not have
told 
> Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldren that it was significant.



MercuryBlue:
Oh, I know she has great significance to the backstory and future
plot. Did Voldemort know she had any significance whatsoever?
Unlikely. Did he care? Rather less likely. She was about as important
to him as that ant is to you.

James WAS significant to Voldemort. Sort of. Certainly he posed more
of a threat, though that might be as much because he was actually
pointing a wand at him and yelling in Latin. (Lily, you'll note, did
no such thing.) My personal theory is that James was made a target
because 1) he was a pureblood with a Muggle-born girlfriend 2) his
best friend was House of Black's 'white sheep' 3) he annoyed the elder
Slytherins in school; those elder Slytherins, having joined the Death
Eaters for their own reasons, decided it'd be amusing to grab a few
friends and get a bit of personal revenge; Voldemort figured it
wouldn't hurt anything, and it would up the fear factor (always a good
thing). The subsequent attacks only came because James (and Lily?) had
enough talent to get away from the first one with their hides
relatively intact, and even then were probably orchestrated by those
same Slytherins who'd been Marauder targets a couple times too many.
Probably including Snape.

MercuryBlue








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 02:45:02 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:45:02 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?/ Smart glasses with mead
In-Reply-To: <dku0sk+stes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkuc7e+8qvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142761

> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP of the whole post basically>
> And here's the thing.  I enjoyed Dumbledore's rudeness for the most 
> part.  His wit was amusing, and I enjoyed seeing Vernon get cut down 
> to size and Petunia embarrassed.  It was the head banging that 
> bothered me.  I thought it a bit beneath Dumbledore, frankly.  


Alla:

Oh, I meant to bring up this question about the glasses. I am NOT 
saying it to defend Dumbledore,because as I said earlier to me he does 
not need defending in this scene, quite the contrary. I am simply 
curious.

Are you saying that Dumbledore charmed  the glasses to knock Dursleys 
over the head? I was quite sure that glasses behaved that way out of 
their own volition, well sort of, simply because Dursleys did not 
drink them.

I mean, I don't think that glasses fully think for  themselves, but I 
was quite sure that magical objects have certain freedom of movement 
so to speak.

I cannot say with certainty, but I speculate that Dumbledore only 
charmed glasses to offer Dursleys a drink, nothing more and glasses 
simply took it one step further, so to speak.

I am just speculating of course, but I cannot help but think that 
while in CoS Molly flicks her wand at dishes before they begin to 
clean themselves, I doubt that anybody charmed the mirror at the 
Burrow to yell at Harry.

" Harry got a shock the first time he looked in the mirror over the 
kitchen mantelpiece and it shouted, "Tuck your shirt in, scruffy!" - 
CoS, p.42, paperback.

I thought that was mirror's idea to try and make Harry look better. :-)


JMO,

Alla







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 02:59:35 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:59:35 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkud2n+p4i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142762

Wow, what an interesting thread!
> 
> I would like to start by stating that I am not a literary expert.  
> Other than the required high school classes and required college 
> courses in composition and literature while obtaining my engineering 
> degree, I have no formal training to be classified as a literary 
> expert.  

I'm not exactly a literary expert, but I was working in the story
development department of a film studio when "Sorcerer's Stone" was
plunked down in front of us and we were ordered to figure out what the
heck exactly was the mysterious power this book had over audiences. 

>I have read that some feel that the plot 
> follows the standard fantasy / hero's quest storyline too closely and 
> that she should be more original. 
 

They're not crazy-- I read through the first book thinking, well, duh,
wish fullfillment and by-the-book classical structure.  I don't
remember thinking it was amazing, but I was impressed by the author's
utter fearlessness in the face of cliche.  Avoiding cliche trips a lot
of people up because they start second-guessing their instincts, but
this book just blew right past such timidity.  If the kid was going to
be an orphan with mean step-parents, by god it was going to be the
orphaniest orphan and the meanest stepparents she could make 'em. 
When I got to end and Snape wasn't the bad guy, I though, cool, adding
a little spice of complexity, a little layering of something like
depth to the mix.. she wasn't going to gratify every reader impluse,
she was ready to trip people up.  The second book left me, I suppose,
with the same sort of feeling, that there was liveliness, boldness,
and ambiguity there, but although I admired the books the prose left
me too cold to really love them.

Of course then PoA came out and I thought, prose, what prose?  Who
cares about prose!?  Give me more of this crack cocaine! ;)

I think Steve/bboy hit it on the head with this:

>Here is a very odd and very personal test of how good I think a Harry
>Potter book is. If my mind wanders while I am reading, then it is a
>good book. I know that seems odd, but it is specifically what my mind
>is wandering to that is important. If my mind wanders to other
>interesting Potter storylines and various chapters of my own fan
>fictions, then that's an indication that the book is very stimulating
>and inspiring to me.

To me the strongest thing about JKR's writing as STYLE, as opposed to
the content which I'll cover in a moment, is that she's an open-loop
writer-- she wants the reader to meet her half-way, so she'll sort of
go half-way out and then wait for you to cross over the rest yourself.
 Does that make any sense?  This goes for descriptions of things-- you
have to do most of the picture-painting yourself-- but it also goes
for plot points, such as the vast off-stage drama of the Crouch
family; and for details implied as opposed to stated, such as
Neville's toad being an unfashionable pet given by an out-of-touch
older relative.  She does this a lot too by rooting so many of the
conflicts in the imperfectly understood past.  By making you
participate in the reading, she sort of addicts you to the world.  

Most critically, she does this with the moral universe-- some loops
will never be closed, such as 'are the twins bullies?', or 'is Snape a
good teacher?', or 'how do you deal with someone like Umbrige?'. 
These issues are as unresolvable in the books as they would be in real
life, and we can argue about them till kingdom come.  I never get the
sense that there is a 'correct' reading that the author is shepherding
us to, like, well, pretty much every other writer out there
(*cough*Pullman*cough*).  To me this is the most original and exciting
aspect of the books, because you can't squeeze them dry.

In terms of content, the particular genius of HP is the balance of
wish-fullfillment and mundanity, and also of metaphoric fantasy and
the humanity of the characters acting out their parts in the
psychodrama.  You can have a flying hippogryph, but you have to feed
it bags of dead rats. Ron is the ideal sidekick, but he breaks out of
his prescribed role with his jealousy and struggle with his own
inadequacies.  Anybody could recognize Snape as an archetypical
Shadow, but he's so convincingly drawn that different readers can make
the same guess at his favorite band (Pink Floyd ;-) ).   And the great
thing is, she doesn't compromise either end.  Hollywood ditches
anything that would complicate the fantasy, but I think the tendency
of 'literary' writers is to short-change the wish-fullfillment and the
classical structure, which IMO misses the point of stories altogether.

That's what I think anyhow!

-- Sydney, whose favorite HP moment is the mix of cringing and
nostalgia at Hermionie's Righteous House-Elf campaign.  You get the
fantasy: elves to do all your housework! the complication:  but
they're slaves! the humanity (oh the humanity..) that was SO ME in
high school! and the ambiguity:  is she right?  was I right?  What IS
right, anyways?






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 10 03:31:35 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 03:31:35 -0000
Subject: Lupin in Book 7 (Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters...)
In-Reply-To: <dks1it+3dpp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkueun+b5n8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142763

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:
>
> Carol:
> > Maybe Hagrid will take care of Hedwig, who's too conspicuous for
> > Harry to use as a means of communication, so maybe Harry will use
> > his Patronus to communicate with Lupin, who (IMO) will need to
> > remain at 12 GP as he can no longer spy on the werewolves (his
> > cover is blown--the DEs saw him fighting as an Order member at
> > Hogwarts).
> 
> Julie:
> > I agree Lupin blew his cover, so I'd assume he'll be holed up with
> > the Order, or with Tonks ;-) Grimmald Place seems likely. I
> > suspect the two of them will join in a battle against DEs at
> > some point though.

Pippin:
Erm, why wasn't it blown at the Ministry of Magic? Surely Bella had to
have seen him there. Peter obviously knew he was a member of the 
Order in any case. I think he must use a disguise among the werewolves.

Jen:

> I *think* his skill will help Harry understand the scar connection 
> and perhaps, as we debated in the possession thread, any other 
> powers Voldemort transferred to Harry such as possession and/or 
> legilimency. Lupin understands the dark arts in a much different way 
> from Dumbledore, and his expertise will benefit Harry. Hopefully we 
> will find out where he learned so much about the dark arts and why 
> he had that battered case for his 'first' teaching gig, while JKR is 
> at it.

Pippin:
Heh, heh. That case is the least of what needs explaining about  
his first appearance in PoA. Why wasn't he in the compartment
the first time Harry entered it -- or was he perhaps there but using a 
disillusionment charm? Read carefully -- Harry puts his bags in 
the empty compartment, gets off the train to farewell the Weasleys,
then gets back on, apparently forgetting that he already chose a
compartment!

What is  Lupin's patronus?  (We know it's corporeal, because it made 
the dementor go away.) Would it, like Snape's, give too much away?  

JKR invokes the sinister image of the stranger handing
out candy on the train and never quite counters it -- very different
than the way she handles the frights Sirius gave Harry and Ron.

Have you noticed that the people whom Lupin likes tend to end up
dead?<veg>

Pippin






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 10 03:38:16 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 03:38:16 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore? - cont'd
In-Reply-To: <dku0sk+stes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkufb9+6m3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142764

Valky
Surprisingly, to me, my day has not gone quite as expected. I have a
few hours free now, I am happy to say, and I would love to use it to
complete my response to this thread. 


> Betsy:
> And here's the thing.  I enjoyed Dumbledore's rudeness for the most 
> part.  His wit was amusing, and I enjoyed seeing Vernon get cut down 
> to size and Petunia embarrassed.  


Valky:
I'm glad. :D and surprised not to hear this more often in this
discussion. I would think, and hope, that for the most part all
readers enjoyed this scene for it's wit and humour. I know I did, and
that's the more important thing to me in the reading of it, not
Dumbledore being perfect, but the book being enjoyable and
entertaining. Despite what might be apparent in my being partial to
discussing the blow by blow.


Betsy:
> It was the head banging that 
> bothered me.  I thought it a bit beneath Dumbledore, frankly.  It's 
> a bully's way of intimidation, and Dumbledore didn't need to resort 
> to it, I think.  It was the step too far, for me. (I do like to 
> think that Dumbledore was overcome with anger and behaved badly.  He 
> loves Harry, in his way, plus there is that guilt a_svirn mentioned 
> up-thread.) 

Valky:
I have to admit, I like that take on it quite as much as my own. It is
believable that Dumbledore was acting emotionally because: he *did*
love Harry, this is a well established fact about Dumbledore, and he
was emotionally affected by the way they treated Harry, he never tells
us *exactly* what he's feeling, but guilt seems like a good guess to
me too.

OTOH I don't think that the canon really supports that Dumbledore
intended to beat the Durselys over te head with glasses of mead. He
conjures the glasses for them to drink and in the beginning of the
spell the glasses hover in their reach, it is only when they make a
deliberate attempt to ignore the gesture from dumbledore that the
glasses begin "nudging them gently" on the sides of their heads. A lot
of time passes and Vernon beats his glass away before the glasses
become at all violent. So while I agree with you that violence is kind
of beneath Dumbledore I don't really think this is violence.
Dumbledore cast a spell on the glasses and the spell just kept doing
its job, like it was supposed to, which was to offer the Dursleys
their drinks. Yes I think Dumbledore found it highly amusing that the
Dursleys were exacerbating the spell to a negative effect, and I think
he didn't care because they were being very uncivil towards him by
their snubbing of his gift anyway. But I really don't think he was
ever intending the violence from the start. 


> Betsy:
> I did like his speech at the end, in that the Dursleys *did* treat 
> Harry badly and it was nice to see them called on it.  However, 
> Arthur Weasley's indignation when the Dursleys didn't say goodbye to 
> Harry [GoF 48] was more powerful for me.  Probably because Arthur 
> didn't lower himself to the Dursleys' level.  

Valky:
I found Arthur's scene that you mention above poignant more because of
his beautiful naivete. He utterly expected the Dursleys to care. Maybe
that can be attributed to his admiration of the muggles, in that maybe
he was under the impression that these simple folk must really have
big hearts since they survive and prosper without magic. For me a lot
the poignancy is in Arthur being disabused of his rose-coloured vision
of the world. And I suppose, also, us seeing the dear fatherly Arthur
take for granted that the love in his family exists everywhere. This
happens before Percy leaves the family too so it is involved in
Arthurs 'faint' character arc as much as Harry's.

I don't think Dumbledore lowered himself to anyone's level in his
speech to the Durselys. I think that this scene was as 'Dumbledore' as
it gets, per the chill that ran down everybody's spine when he took
his breath to speak. I do think we are just expected to take this as
100% ice cold peeved Dumbledore and nothing else. If it lowers him
then that lowness, I think, is just a part of him. I personally don't
think it lowers him at all.


Valky:
<snipping the last part because I think we have reached a reasonable
comprimise on that>

Now it's my turn to suggest a comparison. I can't take credit for the
idea because it was actually suggested by someone else. (Thanks Carol!
:D) My suggestion is that we compare the visit by Dumbledore to the
Dursleys to Narcissa and Bella's dropping in unexpectedly on Snape at
Spinners end. 

Narcissa calls on Snape very very unexpectedly. And Bella arrives with
her, striding into Snapes sitting room uninvited and snarling.  By the
rod some of us are measuring Dumbledore with Snape should have slammed
the door in Bella's face. But he instead plays the charming host to
both ladies, offering drinks and seats etc, even making a proper
toast. Narcissa then apologises for turning up 'like this', which does
suggest that she has arrived improperly in some sense. My guess is
that she means to apologise for arriving without announcement or
invitation.

aside:- You are right, Carol,  There is an extraordinary whiff of posh
from these pages I am looking at now <bg>

In general, I think that the arrival of the Black sisters at Spinners
End demonstrates the reception that Dumbledore expected to see when he
got to the Dursleys. Well perhaps not as warm, but the same sorts of
gesture - humouring the visit with a polite and customary few minutes
of your time and playing charming host even though you are caught
off-guard. Anyone doubting that this seemingly antiquated sort of
formal etiquette is written into HBP should read this chapter again.

Valky



 








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov 10 04:08:45 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:08:45 -0000
Subject: Lupin in Book 7 (Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters...)
In-Reply-To: <dkueun+b5n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkuh4d+n6b1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142765

Pippin: 
> Have you noticed that the people whom Lupin likes tend to end up
> dead?<veg>


Potioncat:
That doesn't bode well for Snape. Lupin neither likes nor dislikes him. 
Dementor's kiss, anyone?

I didn't think Lupin was so much spying with the werewolves, as out and 
out trying to convince them to follow Dumbledore. Then, again, I may 
have missed something.







From djklaugh at comcast.net  Thu Nov 10 04:52:46 2005
From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:52:46 -0000
Subject: An alternate RAB theory.
In-Reply-To: <dkt25h+7jun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkujmu+r38c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142766

{snip} 
> ibchawz responds:
{snippety snip snip.....)
 
 a)	Regulus A. Black 
 b)	Rosmerta (from the Three Broomsticks) 
  Amy Benson -   
 c)	Borgin (of Borgin and Burkes)  
 d)	RABastan Lestrange 
 e)	Remember Amy Benson 
 f)	Remember Amelia Bones 
 g)	R. Andromeda Black 
 h)	RAB = Ronald+Arthur+Bilius  
 i)      R. Amelia Bones 
 j)      Really Any Body - This one is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but 
 could tie in with k) below. 
 k)	Nobody.   
 l)      Argus Filch - Caretaker at Hogwarts and a squib who changed 
 his name to remove any ties with his family.
 
 ibchawz


I personally think RAB is related to your j and k answers, 
ibchawz ... Rowling Acting Badly .... or Rowling Adlibs Baldly .... 
or Rowling Affects Bamboozling 
 Deb (djklaugh)







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 20:49:58 2005
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:49:58 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody else?
In-Reply-To: <dktapn+rkf4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dktndm+5n22@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142767

> >  > Alla:
> > <SNIP>
> > > Woudn't you agree that Snape did what ANY half decent person was supposed to do after such person realised that being a member of terrorist organization is very very WRONG?
> 
> Montavilla:
> > If ANY half-decent person would defy their own colleagues and 
> bosses to do the right 
> > thing, then there would be a lot less casual evil in the world.  
> Yes, they should.  We all 
> > should.  But very few do.
> 
> Alla:
> 
But  defining casual evil does not mean that you were an evil person in the first place, IMO. It seems to me that it is not that casual if you turned to Grand evil first. Am I making sense or not much?



Montavilla:

It's far more likely that I'm the one not making clear sense.  But you said "after such person realized" which implied to me that he (or any hypothetical person) might not have 
realized how truly evil the Death Eaters were when joining.  

Joining it in the first place is a separate thing.  Interestingly, I was just given this link: <a href==http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-665564.html>Klansman who became civil rights activist dies</a> that addresses a similar situation.  It's a story about a Klansman 
who realized after joining and working his way up to a powerful position, changed his mind.  

In this story, the Klansman is seen as a hero for changing his mind and working for a better cause.  At some point, he had to have joined the Klan.  But that's not relevant to the story.  What is important is that he turned around fought for what he realized is right.

How does this relate to Snape?  It's really the same story, isn't it?  (Provided you believe in DDM!Snape.)  Why Snape joined the Death Eaters is ultimately less important than his conversion back to the side of Good.  If he did that, then he acted heroically.  

He also reacted the way any half-decent person ought to.  But plenty of half-decent (and 
mostly decent people) don't.  Many lack either the detachment to re-assess their 
convictions or the courage to follow their new convictions, or both.


Montavilla.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 05:18:39 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:18:39 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore? - cont'd
In-Reply-To: <dkufb9+6m3g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkul7f+ti9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142768

Valky wrote:
<snip> 
> OTOH I don't think that the canon really supports that Dumbledore
> intended to beat the Durselys over te head with glasses of mead. He
> conjures the glasses for them to drink and in the beginning of the
> spell the glasses hover in their reach, it is only when they make a
> deliberate attempt to ignore the gesture from dumbledore that the
> glasses begin "nudging them gently" on the sides of their heads. A
lot of time passes and Vernon beats his glass away before the glasses
> become at all violent. <snip>
> Dumbledore cast a spell on the glasses and the spell just kept doing
> its job, like it was supposed to, which was to offer the Dursleys
> their drinks. <snip>

Carol responds:
Yes, that's what I thought, too, as I noted in my response to
Ravenclaw Bookworm's chapter questions. (I'm too lazy to look up the
link, sorry.)

Valky:
> <snip>
> Now it's my turn to suggest a comparison. I can't take credit for
the idea because it was actually suggested by someone else. (Thanks
Carol! :D) My suggestion is that we compare the visit by Dumbledore to
the Dursleys to Narcissa and Bella's dropping in unexpectedly on Snape
at Spinners end. 
> 
> Narcissa calls on Snape very very unexpectedly. And Bella arrives
with her, striding into Snapes sitting room uninvited and snarling. 
By the rod some of us are measuring Dumbledore with Snape should have
slammed the door in Bella's face. But he instead plays the charming
host to both ladies, offering drinks and seats etc, even making a
proper toast. Narcissa then apologises for turning up 'like this',
which does suggest that she has arrived improperly in some sense. My
guess is that she means to apologise for arriving without announcement
or invitation.
> 
> aside:- You are right, Carol,  There is an extraordinary whiff of
posh from these pages I am looking at now <bg>
 
> In general, I think that the arrival of the Black sisters at
Spinners End demonstrates the reception that Dumbledore expected to
see when he got to the Dursleys. Well perhaps not as warm, but the
same sorts of gesture - humouring the visit with a polite and
customary few minutes of your time and playing charming host even
though you are caught off-guard. Anyone doubting that this seemingly
antiquated sort of formal etiquette is written into HBP should read
this chapter again.

Carol responds:
I'm glad you liked my suggestion. I don't remember using the
expression "whiff of posh" (being American and all that), but I think
it's close to my intended meaning, which is that the "custom" you're
describing seems like something out of Jane Austen to me, that I saw
the same highly civilized and very English behavior that Dumbledore
expected and didn't receive from the Dursleys in Snape as he
entertained the Black sisters with small talk and wine before getting
down to business. (We see something like that again on the tower in
Dumbledore's extension of courtesy to Draco and the very undeserving
Death Eaters, with the obvious exception of an offered drink.)

I'm trying to imagine an American Dumbledore unexpectedly dropping in
on the Dursleys. Maybe he'd be slightly scruffy and openly hippieish,
looking a bit like Walt Whitman or that crazy professor at the
University of Arizona who runs around the campus in bare feet--his
name escapes me but he's well-known. At any rate, I picture something
like this:

(Dumbledore knocks or rings the bell. Vernon Dursley answers.)
Dumbledore: "Didn't you get my note, Dursley? (Steps inside.) Sit
down, sit down! (Peeks into the kitchen.) Are you Petunia? Come on,
come on. We're wasting time. Oh, that must be Dudley. Everybody here?
Harry, put your stuff down and take a seat. Now the reason I'm here is--"

No drinks, no small talk, only the barest of introductions, then down
to business. (And no American I know would have served anyone mead,
least of all two sixteen-year-old boys. Well, Nora might have. ;-) )

But Dumbledore, being (thank heavens!) English is considerably more
knowledgeable about etiquette, not to mention concerned about its
importance, than any American of my acquaintance. If he's rude, it's a
very "posh" (to use Valky's word), very formal, very elegant sort of
rudeness. I'm sure the Dursleys were startled by being forced to sit
on their own sofa, but I doubt they were terrified (unless we count
the sudden appearance of Kreacher). And as for the drinks, I agree
with Valky that the glasses were simply "doing their job," calling
attention to themselves. In ordinary circumstances, they'd have
behaved like Harry's and Dumbledore's glasses and remained on the
table when placed there. They only became persistent when they were
ignored.

Carol






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 10 05:25:07 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:25:07 -0000
Subject: Petunia allowing Harry houseroom (Re: Etiquette )
In-Reply-To: <dkrfp5+r9jb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkuljj+o3t1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142769

a_svirn:
> Personally I suspect that the melancholy truth is that Dumbledore
> did bully the Dursleys into adopting Harry, even though he couldn't
> *make* them to love him. What else does his little speech about
> Harry's being "unwelcome" and the Dursleys taking him "grudgingly"
> mean? Why would you "grudgingly" agree to raise other people's
> child? There are only three possibilities: either you stand to
> gain, or to loose or both. I don't see what the Dursleys got in
> the way of carrots. They are unaware of Harry's fortune, and their
> way of life has not changed noticeably since the Halloween 1981.
> As for sticks we don't have to overtax our imagination: we've seen
> enough of them. Fear might be only a "halfway decent" factor, but
> I believe it was enough for the Dursleys.

Jen: Your analysis sums up the situation well, and only our 
conclusions differ. The main reason I can't accept fear of 
Dumbledore as the motivating factor is because the Dursleys did not 
hesitate to go against Dumbledore's wishes for Harry when he was 
left with them. 

Dumbledore said in Book 1 chapter 1 that he was leaving a letter 
so 'his aunt and uncle will be able to explain everything to him 
when he's older.' Not only did the Dursleys keep this information 
from Harry, they also decided on their own to 'stamp out that 
dangerous nonsense'. Then when the Hogwarts letter came, they 
attempted to thwart Harry's admission. These actions tell me the 
Dursleys had no fear of retribution and in fact, didn't expect to 
have contact with the WW again. They considered themselves in charge 
of raising Harry as they saw fit, and were completely floored the 
day the WW re-entered their lives. 

So I think there was something that motivated Petunia to accept 
Harry besides being bullied by Dumbledore, and I do think Petunia 
made the decision; she was the one who had received letters from 
Dumbledore prior to finding Harry on the doorstep. Maybe the 
motivation was as simple as a wish to squash Harry's magical 
ability, something she couldn't do with Lily. Maybe it was 
protection granted. Perhaps in Dumbledore's letters to Petunia he 
mentioned that Voldemort was aware of the Dursleys and might 
possibly use them to get to Lily and Harry. When Lily was murdered, 
Dumbledore offered protection to the Dursleys in exchange for taking 
Harry in. After all, Harry might be safe from Voldemort in the place 
where his mother's blood dwells, but the Dursleys weren't so lucky! 
Over time though, the Durlseys felt the threat of Voldemort was gone 
and therefore their contact with the WW over.

Valky: 
> Just speculatively I am imagining Petunia as a young girl with a
> *special* sister, using my own feelings I am getting the sense
> that as a girl Petunia might have been fascinated and even mildy
> enamoured of the secret special society Lily belonged to. 
<snipping>
> If this was the case, then it follows that taking Harry in offers
> Petunia a dream come true in itself. Her own little secret to keep,
> just like Lily had, a letter from the little secret world that she
> is connected to, again like Lily. Although she is older now and
> outwardly she presents her very diginified Muggle persona, could
> it be so unusual that inside her little princess persona doesn't
> want her to let go of her fantasy. 

Jen: Oh Valky, I always like your ideas even when I can't totally 
agree! Personally it pains me greatly to read the scene where 
Petunia speaks of Lily with such venom in her voice and calls her a 
freak. Having a sister I wouldn't trade for anything, it would be 
soothing to know Petunia and Lily had a good relationship at one 
time, and perhaps the combination of perceived rejection on 
Petunia's part as Lily spent more and more time in the WW, and 
Vernon's influence, caused the resentment to grow over time.

Whatever feelings Petunia may have had as a young girl seem long 
gone by the time we meet her in PS, though. Not to say she couldn't 
have her secret wish buried inside, but Harry isn't privy to it and 
therefore it doesn't appear to be a readily explainable motive in 
the text. We do get to read about the things that motivate Petunia, 
namely anything to do with Dudley, a world where magic doesn't 
exist, her sparkling house, gossip....

Now it *is* possible Harry misinterprets Petunia and that would be 
very revealing and interesting. That certain times when he perceives 
anger, hatred, resentment, etc. something else is actually going on 
for Petunia underneath the facade she's built. Then your idea would 
definitely work. But if we're meant to go strictly on what Harry has 
interpreted so far, it's a more difficult fit for me.

Valky:
> I think this simplifies nicely the questions that are on both our
> minds. Why did Petunia take Harry in, what is her personal
> connection to the magic world, and what explains both these things
> while keeping the visit in HBP and the Howler readable at face
> value? It takes us back to the original theories we had before it
> was all complicated by the OOtP Howler that Petunia was just a
> little jealous of Lily and that she likes the notion of a magical
> world just a little more than she lets on.

Jen: Well, it would certainly explain JKR's comment that Petunia is 
not a Squib but 'that is a good guess'. If she spent her girlhood 
learning about the WW only to reject it in her adulthood, she was 
definitely more like a Squib than a Muggle.

Jen






From ellecain at yahoo.com.au  Thu Nov 10 05:29:13 2005
From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:29:13 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dkogi1+53qq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkulr9+9s9r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142770

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at t...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" <ellecain at y...> 
> wrote:
> 
> Elyse:
> > But why, why ,why does Snape have long hair?
> > This has bothered me for a very long time. 
> 
> > But he is not the only one. Why does Sirius have long hair?
> 
> Geoff:
> I thought it was blindingly obvious.
> 
> They both went to see "The Lord of the Rings" and thought that 
Viggo 
> Mortenson and Sean Bean were projecting great images as Aragorn 
and 
> Boromir so decided to introduce this into their own life styles....

Elyse: Wait, wait! Snape and Sirius?
In a movie theater?
Together?
I *knew* there was more to that OOTP catfight than met the eye...:-)



> Geoff:
> You see, I can W.A.F.F.L.E. as well as the next person when the 
mood 
> takes me.

Elyse: Indeed you can!

> 
> Looking at some of the tricks JKR gets up to, I think there should 
> also be a category R.H.U.B.A.R.B. (Red Herrings Under Beds And 
> Raspberry Bushes).
> 
> Hm. Perhaps I should go back on the tablets.....
> :-)
>

Elyse: You and me both! 

Elyse (rolling on the floor laughing at the unexpected but
hilarous results of WAFFLES)






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 07:25:30 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:25:30 -0000
Subject: Etiquette - Smart glasses with mead
In-Reply-To: <dkuc7e+8qvq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkusla+otbk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142771

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>
> > Betsy Hp:
> <SNIP of the whole post basically>
> > And here's the thing.  I enjoyed Dumbledore's rudeness for the
> > most part.  His wit was amusing, and I enjoyed seeing Vernon 
> > get cut down to size and Petunia embarrassed.  It was the head 
> > banging that bothered me.  I thought it a bit beneath 
> > Dumbledore, frankly.  
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, I meant to bring up this question about the glasses. I am
> NOT saying it to defend Dumbledore,because as I said earlier 
> to me he does not need defending in this scene, ...
> 
> ...I was quite sure that glasses behaved that way out of 
> their own volition, well sort of, simply because Dursleys 
> did not drink them.
> 
> I mean, I don't think that glasses fully think for  themselves,
> but I was quite sure that magical objects have certain freedom
> of movement so to speak.
> 
> I cannot say with certainty, but I speculate that Dumbledore only 
> charmed glasses to offer Dursleys a drink, nothing more and glasses 
> simply took it one step further, so to speak.
> 
> ...
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla


bboyminn:

I think you are on the right track here. I suspect Dumbledore
enchanted the glasses of mead to give themselves to the Dursleys. The
Dursleys were not required to drink, only to accept the glasses. 

I personally think if they had grasped the glasses out of the air and
set them down on the coffee table, that would have been the end of it.
But they tried to ignore the glasses, and the glasses became more
insistant about fulfilling their task of getting the Dursleys to take
them. When the Dursleys further refused, the glasses became even more
insistant and the situation escalated.

If I go to someone's house and they hand me a drink, a drink that I
really don't want and don't feel comfortable taking, I will probably
take it out of courtesy, but not drink it. I'll do as the Dursleys
should have done and accept it graciously, and ditch it at the first
chance. 

I really don't think Dumbledore intended for the Drink Glasses to
harrass the Dursley. Though, I'm quite sure he enjoyed it. I think he
expected them to extend the most basic and common civility and accept
the glasses and be done with it. They weren't required to drink, only
to uphold the most basic social pretext of civility.

Just the way I see it.

Steve/bboyminn






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 10 07:48:58 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:48:58 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dku0sk+stes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkuu1a+bpr1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142772

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

Betsy Hp:
 > 1) Dumbledore  does *not* properly announce his arrival.  He 
> communicates with a minor in the Dursley household, not with Vernon 
> or Petunia [HBP 43].  And as such, his arrival surprises the 
> household [HBP 45].
> 
> Molly Weasley, on the other hand, asks both Petunia and Vernon for 
> permission to come collect Harry and waits to receive an answer 
[GoF 
> 30].

Geoff:
If I might attempt to bowl a yorker at you on that one, there is an 
interesting counter to that because, after Harry uses a 
little "blackmail" to force Vernon's agreement to him going, 
Pidwidgeon arrives with a letter from Ron in which he writes:

"We're coming for you whether the Muggles like it or not, you can't 
miss the World Cup, only Mum and Dad reckon it's better if we pretend 
to ask their permission first. If they say yes, send Pig back with 
your answer pronto and we'll come and get you at five o'clock on 
Sunday. If they say no, send Pig back pronto and we'll come and get 
you at five o'clock on Sunday anyway."

(GOF "The Invitation" p.37 UK edition)







From zanelupin at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 08:40:17 2005
From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:40:17 -0000
Subject: Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <dktsc2+nb32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkv11h+fvfc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142773

Steve wrote:

> In conclusion, that is consistent with the Fedelius Charm. 
> Remember, that it is Dumbledore that is the charmed object. He has 
> been charmed with the secret of the location of the Black House, 
> the Fedelius Charm has not been performed on the House itself. 
> When the Charmed Object, Dumbledore, is gone/dead, the charm is 
> broken.


KathyK:

Secret-Keeping is so very upsetting to me.  No explanation that I 
come up with, and no explanation by anyone else can satisfy me.  I 
think you're right, Steve.  What we know about SK is consistent with 
what you say above.  It makes sense that it would work like that.  
It even provides for a somewhat plausible reason Sirius convinced 
the Potters to fool LV into going after the wrong SK.  If Sirius 
died as SK, Lily and James *could* be found out.  With Peter as 
Secret-Keeper, LV can kill Sirius and still the Potters would be 
safe.  

But what bothers me is how useless the Fidelius Charm is in this 
case.  Not completely useless, of course.  The Secret still lies 
only with the Keeper, given away to trustworthy folks who cannot 
themselves pass on the secret.  It may not be the easiest thing in 
the world, to find a smart, well-hidden Secret-Keeper, but once the 
SK is found, the one searching for the hidden knowledge doesn't even 
have to try torture or coercion, need not even *ask* to give away 
the secret.  Just bypass all the *work* and go straight for the 
quick and dirty kill.  Then go find what it is you're looking for, 
be they defiant enemies or a whole house.  I'm oversimplifying the 
steps for overcoming the Fidelius a bit, I know.  It would have its 
uses, even if all it takes is a well-placed AK.

Okay, then.  What about our earlier Fidelius example, again?  If the 
SK dying breaks the Charm because the SK is the charmed Object, what 
about when that which is hidden is destroyed yet the Secret-Keeper 
lives, as in the case of James and Lily?  If the Secret itself is 
not the Object (which is the opposite of what I've always assumed 
but you just have to be so darn reasonable, don't you, Steve? ;-) ) 
could it be destroyed *without* being revealed?  Hypothetically, 
would burning down  12 Grimmauld Place have broken the Charm as 
well.  It may not have been what was charmed, but without a Secret, 
there is no purpose of a SK.  Does that also unravel the spell?  
Perhaps in the case of GH the secret was not revealed with the death 
of the Potters.  It was just that those folks so closely involved 
(Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid) with the events and their aftermath 
already knew where to look, were in on the secret.

KathyK, subjecting you to the shorter version of her SK 
thoughts...for now ;-)






From h.m.s at mweb.co.za  Thu Nov 10 06:19:27 2005
From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:19:27 +0200
Subject: Polite Dumbledore - Assumptions of Courtesy
Message-ID: <003501c5e5be$dba619d0$0200a8c0@Sharon>

No: HPFGUIDX 142774

Steve/bboyminn:
"Expanding on that, I think if Harry had told the Dursleys that Dumbledore
was coming, they would have had
time to mentally prepare, and would have responded better; not necessarily
with courtesy, but at least, responded better"

Sharon now:
I think you're correct here, but their response would have been to attempt
to barricade the house, rather like Vernon trying to keep the letters to
Harry out (PS).  It would have been totally ineffectual against Dumbledore,
of course, possible very funny to read about, but would have contributed to
the waste of time factor.

Steve/bboyminn again
"Just one man's opinion."

Sharon again:
I think you have captured my train of thought very well, thank you Steve, so
add me to your list
Sharon
(Durban - South Africa)








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 00:53:48 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:53:48 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dktqkb+rncf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dku5ms+bjl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142775

So I goofed about the Playstation. I don't generally do Playstation.
But there are honest-to-god this-doesn't-match-the-calendar dates in
the series, prominent among them being September 2nd is always a
Monday, Nov 1 1981 was not a Tuesday and Nov 5 (Bonfire Night) is not
'next week' from then, and if the Nimbus 2001 came out in August 1992,
the Nimbus 2000 must have been somewhat more than a year earlier, but
there is no mention of it in Quidditch Through the Ages. Which does
mention the Twigger 90, which came out in 1990 and at the date of
publication had already acquired a reputation for being flown by
wizards with more money than sense. My point remains.

And I was thinking seventeen-year-old boys were the target audience
for Star Wars.

MercuryBlue








From elfundeb at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 11:49:02 2005
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:49:02 -0500
Subject: Humor and Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0511100349j140e69cen9b10abca3c2a43e7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142776

 Some thoughts on the humor in ch. 3 and our reaction to it --
 bboyminn wrote:
First, this is fiction, not everything exists to a real world
standards. I'm sure JKR meant this chapter to read humorously. Think
about your average TV sit-com; how realistic are they? Not very, but
they are usually funny.
Betsy:
> And here's the thing. I enjoyed Dumbledore's rudeness for the most
> part. His wit was amusing, and I enjoyed seeing Vernon get cut down
> to size and Petunia embarrassed.

Valky:
I'm glad. :D and surprised not to hear this more often in this
discussion. I would think, and hope, that for the most part all
readers enjoyed this scene for it's wit and humour. I know I did, and
that's the more important thing to me in the reading of it, not
Dumbledore being perfect, but the book being enjoyable and
entertaining.

Oh, yes, it's clear that JKR enjoys humor and employs it frequently and
successfully in the books. However, one's reaction to humor is intensely
personal. One of the narrative functions served by the Dursleys is to serve
as the butt of humor. It takes many forms, and it usually works very well.
Often, they provide laughs through their own words; they victimise
themselves (just reread the first chapter of PS/SS).
 However, the particular form of humor JKR is employing here, comeuppance
humor, is not universally appreciated. The etiquette debate in large part
reflects our own emotional reaction to the scene, and our general attitude
toward comeuppance humor. Those of us who are comfortable with comeuppance
humor are prepared to defend Dumbledore's actions (whether or not they were
polite). OTOH, readers who don't like comeuppance humor are going to react
differently to his unorthodox manners.
 Also, I believe that this attempt at comeuppance humor worked far less well
than other instances where JKR has used it on the Dursleys.
 Betsy wrote:
> It was the head banging that
> bothered me. I thought it a bit beneath Dumbledore, frankly. It's
> a bully's way of intimidation, and Dumbledore didn't need to resort
> to it, I think. It was the step too far, for me. (I do like to
> think that Dumbledore was overcome with anger and behaved badly. He
> loves Harry, in his way, plus there is that guilt a_svirn mentioned
> up-thread.)

Though Dumbledore unquestionably has his humorous moments ("Nitwit! Blubber!
Oddment! Tweak!"), I think using a character JKR has described as "the
epitome of goodness" for this purpose has created obstacles for some readers
(myself included) to appreciate the humor. OTOH, in other instances where
JKR has employed slapstick humor at the Dursleys' expense, the agents of the
humor (the twins in GoF and Hagrid in PS/SS) were not the authority figures
that Dumbledore is. Both the twins and Hagrid operate, to varying degrees,
if not outside at least on the edge of the law.
 The context of this scene was different than the other examples. For
example, the GoF scene involved a great many more moving parts: Dudley
gagging, Petunia trying to wrench the tongue out of his mouth, and Vernon
using the china figurines for target practice while Arthur tries to reassure
Vernon that everything will be just fine -- with his wand hand outstretched.
I think (unsurprisingly, I know) that the twins were unfairly taking
advantage of Dudley; whether Dudley was a big bullying git is irrelevant.
Yet I can appreciate the slapstick comedy of the scene.
 Similarly, I didn't think Hagrid should have made Dudley the victim in
PS/SS when his beef was with Vernon, but Dudley's pig tail was quite funny
in its execution, especially Hagrid's deadpan explanation of why the spell
didn't work as intended.

There was a lot less going on in the scene in HBP - just Dumbledore
asserting his authority through a passive-aggressive display of *manners*.
As readers we are a diverse group and have different definitions of what
constitutes good manners. For example, I consider passing out food or drink
to people without asking first if they want it to be very bad manners; thus
I was particularly offended by Dumbledore's assertion that it would have
been better manners for the Dursleys to drink the mead. (Actually, I think
his manners were poor throughout, and thought lealess did an excellent job
of cataloguing my reaction to them.) In fact, I found myself empathising
with the Dursleys as they were being assaulted and sloshed by drinks they
didn't want, and I'm sure JKR did not intend for the reader to have any
sympathy for them.
 For those of us who read Dumbledore's actions as "bad manners" the humor in
the scene was harder to appreciate, although I recognized that the intent
was not to portray Dumbledore as an ill-mannered person. Does this make JKR
a bad writer, or a bad person? Of course not. No author can please every
reader all of the time. But certain types of humor are more universally
appreciated than others, and this scene provokes strong negative reactions
in many people.
 On the other hand, I didn't have any problem with Dumbledore chastising the
Dursleys for their appalling behavior to Harry all these years. And this set
up the one line I thought was truly funny: "Dudley was frowning slightly, as
though he was still trying to work out when he had ever been mistreated."
  Debbie
who also has some thoughts on Petunia's flushed face but will save them for
another post


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bawilson at citynet.net  Thu Nov 10 04:27:47 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:27:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dktpla+u1k4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAfBeegjiuAE66Eqr19ZlYdwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142777

bboyminn wrote:
> Harry's life may have been unpleasant but he was alive and safe, 
> and miserable though that life may be, it is preferrable to the 
> alternative. 
<snip>
> Dumbledore made a hard choice, one that even he concedes was a bad
> choice, but bad as it was, it was also the necessary choice. There 
> was no other situation that afforted Harry the level of protection 
> he received from living in the presence of and under the 
> protection of his mother's blood. 


Bruce Alan Wilson:
I don't quite understand how the 'blood protection' thing works, but I'm not a sorcerer, so there's no reason why I SHOULD.  And there's
no reason why JKR has to show us all the machinery.


bboyminn:
> So, the choices were, Harry lives with his anti-magic uncle and
> bullying cousin, or he is tortured and murdered by psychotic Death 
> Eaters.
>
> Seems an easy choice to me.

Bruce Alan Wilson:
Exactly.


bboyminn:
> Sorry, but I don't see any inconsistency in Dumbledore's 
> character. He made an terrible but necessary choice. One that he 
> regrets but one that given the same circumstances he would likely 
> have made again.

Bruce Alan Wilson:
Hindsight is always 20-20.


bboyminn:
> One last note; I think part of the appeal of JKR's books is that
> characters are not Pollyanna, Saturday Afternoon Special, Sunday
> School Lesson picture perfect. Every character is flawed and makes
> mistakes, and they have to struggle to do the right thing, and 
> people identify with that struggle a lot more than with letter 
> prefect flawlessly moral characters. 

> Dumbledore made a hard and terrible choice, but a choice that none 
> the less HAD to be made.

Bruce Alan Wilson:
IMHO, the correct one.  DD made mistakes, of course--as wise
and powerful as he is, he is still human.  He made the best choices he could given the circumstances and the knowledge he had at the time.  That some of them turned out to have been the WRONG choices doesn't make him wicked or stupid--just human.

Bruce Alan Wilson





From bawilson at citynet.net  Thu Nov 10 04:45:16 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:45:16 -0500
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore? - cont'd
In-Reply-To: <dkufb9+6m3g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAw8G8Mrk2pkmAeiNqonZCCAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142778

Valky wrote:
Now it's my turn to suggest a comparison. I can't take credit for the
idea because it was actually suggested by someone else. (Thanks Carol! :D) My suggestion is that we compare the visit by Dumbledore to the Dursleys to Narcissa and Bella's dropping in unexpectedly on Snape at Spinners end. 

Narcissa calls on Snape very very unexpectedly. And Bella arrives with her, striding into Snapes sitting room uninvited and snarling.  By the rod some of us are measuring Dumbledore with Snape should have slammed the door in Bella's face. But he instead plays the charming host to both ladies, offering drinks and seats etc, even making a proper toast. Narcissa then apologises for turning up 'like this', which does suggest that she has arrived improperly in some sense. My guess is that she means to apologise for arriving without announcement or invitation.

In general, I think that the arrival of the Black sisters at Spinners
End demonstrates the reception that Dumbledore expected to see when he got to the Dursleys. Well perhaps not as warm, but the same sorts of gesture - humouring the visit with a polite and customary few minutes of your time and playing charming host even though you are caught off-guard. Anyone doubting that this seemingly antiquated sort of formal etiquette is written into HBP should read this chapter again. 


Bruce Alan Wilson:
I do like this comparison.  You must remember that the Wizardling World is a much more conservative one than ours; this is not unsurprising given that wizards live much longer than Muggles  Consider Dumbledore's age.  If you have ever read Jane Austen, the Bronte Sisters, Dickens, or other 19th C. authors you will see that in that era middle- and upper-class people had a fairly strict protocol about 'paying a call.'  It seems that these protocols have survived to a greater extent among Wizards than among Muggles.  According to the rules of his culture, Dumbledore is behaving perfectly correctly; under the Victorian codes of manners it was possible to manipulate the conventions in such a way as to deliver a fairly stinging rebuke--indeed, verbally rip someone into tiny
little shreds--without raising one's voice, using profanity, or otherwise putting oneself in the wrong, and that is exactly what he did; he has made the Dursleys squirm--as well they should--without giving them any opportunity to raise any objections without seeming even more boorish than they are.  

Bruce Alan Wilson





From bawilson at citynet.net  Thu Nov 10 04:48:38 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:48:38 -0500
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Protection Lost at 17???/ Apparition before being 17
In-Reply-To: <dktgqe+mbb9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAASEV8oYceA0KyD9tz2ccl+gEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142779

mercurybluesmng wrote:
> Funny, I seem to recall a fair number of not-yet-seventeen-year-olds 
> learning to Apparate in Hogwarts's Great Hall. Case in point: Harry.


Bruce Alan Wilson: 
In OOTP it is speculated that outside of the British Isles kids may be allowed to apparate earlier than 17 (never confirmed or denied).  I think that underage apparation is more a 'malum in prohibendum' than a 'malum in se'. 







From bawilson at citynet.net  Thu Nov 10 04:53:01 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:53:01 -0500
Subject: Polite Dumbledore/ Harry's feelings about Dursleys/Moral cruelty and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dksjko+a72c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAqbM6X/l35E+7Y7kNE4oZVQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142780

Alla:
> Oh, IMO,  the similarities are not THAT striking. While both 
> Dumbledore and Voldemort have upper hand so to speak, I have  not 
> noticed Dumbledore trying to kill Dursleys.

a_svirn:
Er? Was Voldemort's "punctilious" observance of the duelling code a 
method to kill Harry? I rather thought he had the Killing Course for 
that. Nope, the purpose of that particular exercise was to humiliate 
Harry. And behind Dumbledor's little display of manners was exactly 
the same motivation. So, I'd say, the similarities are quite 
salient. The only difference is that Voldemort's audience was far 
more appreciative. 


Bruce Alan Wilson:
Voldemort's ultimate desire was to kill Harry; Dumbledore's desire was to make the Dursleys ashamed of their past behavior and perhaps at least think about changing their future behavior.  Also, Voldemort and his followers choose victims who have done nothing wrong just for the fun of it; Dumbledore chooses victims who have done wrong with a view towards teaching them the error of their ways.  There's a big difference.

Bruce Alan Wilson






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 12:43:41 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:43:41 -0000
Subject: Lupin in Book 7 (Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters...)
In-Reply-To: <dkueun+b5n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvf9t+86oe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142781

Carol:
> > > ... Lupin, who (IMO) will need to remain at 12 GP as he can no 
> > > longer spy on the werewolves (his cover is blown--the DEs saw 
> > > him fighting as an Order member at Hogwarts).

Julie:
> > I agree Lupin blew his cover, so I'd assume he'll be holed up 
> > with the Order, or with Tonks ;-) Grimmald Place seems likely. I
> > suspect the two of them will join in a battle against DEs at
> > some point though.

Pippin:
> Erm, why wasn't it blown at the Ministry of Magic? Surely Bella had 
> to have seen him there. Peter obviously knew he was a member of the 
> Order in any case. I think he must use a disguise among the 
> werewolves.


Lupin was not spying on the werewolves. Important distinction here. 
He was trying to convince them that their leader is a psychotic who's 
allied them with a sociopath, and blindly following said leaders will 
lead only to disaster. Not that they were listening, as Greyback is 
apparently a powerful personality and he does unfortunately have a 
point about the general attitudes toward werewolves. But now that 
Greyback's (at least temporarily) out of the picture, maybe the 
werewolves will listen to reason.

MercuryBlue









From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 13:01:21 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:01:21 -0000
Subject: Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <dkv11h+fvfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvgb1+cbkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142782

> KathyK:
> But what bothers me is how useless the Fidelius Charm is in this 
> case.  Not completely useless, of course.  The Secret still lies 
> only with the Keeper, given away to trustworthy folks who cannot 
> themselves pass on the secret.  It may not be the easiest thing in 
> the world, to find a smart, well-hidden Secret-Keeper, but once the 
> SK is found, the one searching for the hidden knowledge doesn't 
> even have to try torture or coercion, need not even *ask* to give 
> away the secret.  Just bypass all the *work* and go straight for the 
> quick and dirty kill.  Then go find what it is you're looking for, 
> be they defiant enemies or a whole house.  I'm oversimplifying the 
> steps for overcoming the Fidelius a bit, I know.  It would have its 
> uses, even if all it takes is a well-placed AK.


What if the Charm fails, not with the death of the Secret-Keeper, but 
with the death of the caster?

That doesn't change much about Grimmauld Place, unless it wasn't 
Dumbledore who cast it after all, but it certainly puts a different 
light on Godric's Hollow.

MercuryBlue










From zehms at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 12:51:51 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:51:51 EST
Subject: What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <1fb.1572d227.30a49c67@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142783

In a message dated 11/9/2005 9:20:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MercuryBlue144 at aol.com writes:

> Oh, I know she has great significance to the backstory and future
> plot. Did Voldemort know she had any significance whatsoever?
> Unlikely. Did he care? Rather less likely. She was about as 
> important to him as that ant is to you.


szehms:
BUt if she is as insignificant as an "ant" why out of the possible hundreds of wizard death VOldemort had been resposible for, did he give one witch "lily" a choice to live?

In the interview quotes I provided, JKR says a choice like the one given to Lily is the one and only time LV allowed a witch or wizard the opportunity to choose to live when faced the possibity of death.  
LV told Harry that "your mother (LIly) needn't have died..." (SS pp. 294) and in POA HArry hears LV tell Lily to step aside I believe 3 times.

WHy not just kill her outright as he did James?

Had he killed her as he did James, Harry would not be "the boy who lived" but by giving Lily the choice she was able to invoke ancient magic sealing an invisible magical contract of "my life for Harry's".

WHy the choice?  If Lily is insignificant to LV then why give her the 
'choice' that ultimately destroyed his corpreal body that night? 

Were the 'choice' without meaning or consequence JKR would not continually refuse to answer this question.

The mystery of the choice I do believe signifies that Lily's life, for some reason, had a degree of meaning to LV, not very much importance as her life was not worth allowing Harry to live, but 'some' importance, the question I ponder is 'why'?  This is a question JKR cannot answer as it is too vital a clue to the end of the series.

szehms





From h.m.s at mweb.co.za  Thu Nov 10 10:19:23 2005
From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:19:23 +0200
Subject: 11 o' Clock
Message-ID: <006a01c5e5e0$3cb46ee0$0200a8c0@Sharon>

No: HPFGUIDX 142784

Musing...Lucianam:
> "as Uncle Vernom said, why the blazes did DD pick such a late hour to 
> collect Harry? Eleven o'clock in the evening  really is too late to 
> call. He possibly had a reason."


Sharon now:
11 o'clock - just before witching hour?
Also - not many people would be around at this time of night - so hopefully no-one would see him arrive or depart Privet Drive, because to be honest, Dumbledore certainly doesn't look "normal".  This could also be showing some consideration to the Dursley's sensibilities (just finished Jane Austen), as well as just a matter of security.
Personally, I've always had the feeling that Dumbledore very carefully timed their arrival at Sluggy's house, so arriving to collect Harry at 11 was part of a carefully timed schedule.

Sharon
(Durban - South Africa)






From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Nov 10 14:21:25 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:21:25 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dkvkdv+91l5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvl15+39bb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142787

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng"
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:
>
> So I goofed about the Playstation. I don't generally do Playstation.
> But there are honest-to-god this-doesn't-match-the-calendar dates in
> the series, prominent among them being September 2nd is always a
> Monday, Nov 1 1981 was not a Tuesday and Nov 5 (Bonfire Night) is
not
> 'next week' from then, and if the Nimbus 2001 came out in August
1992,
> the Nimbus 2000 must have been somewhat more than a year earlier,
but
> there is no mention of it in Quidditch Through the Ages. Which does
> mention the Twigger 90, which came out in 1990 and at the date of
> publication had already acquired a reputation for being flown by
> wizards with more money than sense. My point remains.

the only problem that JKR has is the what day it falls in the week -
that isn't a timeline issue. So, I guess I am not understanding why
you think that we don't know what years the HP series take place
in. I think it is pretty much canon, based on Rowling's statements
and mugglenet's timeline. We know it takes place from 1991 thru 1997
with the 7th book in 1997/1998. Personally, I don't get picky if
Sept 1st always falls on a monday every year. That is called
creative license, or in this case, WW's license :)

>
> And I was thinking seventeen-year-old boys were the target audience
> for Star Wars.

not really in America. I can't speak for other countries, but it was
not cool in the US during the original trilogy to see Star
Wars as an older teen(back during the dark ages of 1977 thru 1983). I
think it has become acceptable now, however. But back then, nope -
only really die-hard fans in that age range went. The *cool* crowd 
didn't.

colebiancardi.
>


















From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 14:25:53 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:25:53 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore? - cont'd
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAw8G8Mrk2pkmAeiNqonZCCAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dkvl9h+b51a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142788


> Valky wrote:
> Now it's my turn to suggest a comparison. I can't take credit for the
> idea because it was actually suggested by someone else. (Thanks 
Carol! :D) My suggestion is that we compare the visit by Dumbledore to 
the Dursleys to Narcissa and Bella's dropping in unexpectedly on Snape 
at Spinners end. 

a_svirn:
I think it's a great comparison, Valky. In Spinner's End we see a host 
playing a host. In Privet Drive we have a guest playing a host. 
Appreciate the difference. 
 
> 
> Bruce Alan Wilson:
> I do like this comparison.  You must remember that the Wizardling 
World is a much more conservative one than ours; this is not 
unsurprising given that wizards live much longer than Muggles  
Consider Dumbledore's age.  If you have ever read Jane Austen, the 
Bronte Sisters, Dickens, or other 19th C. authors you will see that in 
that era middle- and upper-class people had a fairly strict protocol 
about 'paying a call.'  

a_svirn:

If you think that Dumbledore conforms the conventions of 19th century 
protocol, you need to reread the aforementioned authors. Because he 
does not, not even close. 







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov 10 14:47:56 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:47:56 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew  and GP as HQ was  Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <dkv11h+fvfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvmis+njva@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142789

 
> KathyK:
 
> But what bothers me is how useless the Fidelius Charm is in this 
> case.  Not completely useless, of course.  The Secret still lies 
> only with the Keeper, given away to trustworthy folks who cannot 
> themselves pass on the secret.  It may not be the easiest thing in 
> the world, to find a smart, well-hidden Secret-Keeper, but once the 
> SK is found, the one searching for the hidden knowledge doesn't 
even 
> have to try torture or coercion, need not even *ask* to give away 
> the secret.  Just bypass all the *work* and go straight for the 
> quick and dirty kill. 


Potioncat:
If the death of the SK breaks the Fidelius Charm then it casts a 
different light on Peter. His death would have accomplished nothing. 

Back to the question from the discussion, I think the Order continued 
using 12 GP because they had made a temporary move. Like many of you 
have asked, does DD's death end the charm? Did he have the foresight 
to "upgrade" the charm with a different SK? Bill knows a lot about 
casting and breaking charms. Who else?

If the charm is broken, and Snape is camped out at Hotel Voldy, will 
he tell LV where HQ is? 






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 10 14:54:04 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:54:04 -0000
Subject: Lupin in Book 7 (Re: The co-protagonists and minor characters...)
In-Reply-To: <dkvf9t+86oe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvmuc+btpm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142790

MercuryBlue:
> Lupin was not spying on the werewolves. Important distinction here. 
> He was trying to convince them that their leader is a psychotic who's 
> allied them with a sociopath, and blindly following said leaders will 
> lead only to disaster. Not that they were listening, as Greyback is 
> apparently a powerful personality and he does unfortunately have a 
> point about the general attitudes toward werewolves. But now that 
> Greyback's (at least temporarily) out of the picture, maybe the 
> werewolves will listen to reason.


Pippin:
Lupin says he's a spy. 
"Dumbledore wanted a spy and here I was...ready made." HBP ch. 16 And his
mission is covert "Oh, I've been underground," said Lupin. "Almost literally. 
That's why I haven't been able to write, Harry; sending letters to you would
have been something of a giveaway."

Anyone noticed that the questions we're asking about Lupin the spy are the
same ones we used to ask about Snape? Namely, he seems to have been
publically outed, so how can he be getting away with it? Could be it's the
same answer -- Voldemort thinks Lupin is really spying for him. And, IMO,
he's right...

Worse than that, we don't know what happened to Fenrir -- he was 
unconscious last time we saw him, but then what? And Harry's invisibility 
cloak seems to be missing...

Pippin






From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 15:49:07 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:07 -0000
Subject: Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <dkvgb1+cbkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvq5j+uo72@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142792

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" 
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:
> 
> 
> What if the Charm fails, not with the death of the Secret-Keeper, but 
> with the death of the caster?
> 
> That doesn't change much about Grimmauld Place, unless it wasn't 
> Dumbledore who cast it after all, but it certainly puts a different 
> light on Godric's Hollow.
> 
> MercuryBlue
>


I have been wondering about this recently.  When Dumbledore died, it 
was emphasized that Harry knew it because Dumbledore's spell that had 
frozen Harry in place instantly stopped working, and Harry could move 
again.  This really made me start wondering what other magic of 
Dumbledore's is going to stop working.

I thought for sure that Grimauld Place wasn't going to be protected 
now, but it hadn't occured to me that the secret keeper probably isn't 
the one who cast the charm.  Who would it have been then?  Sirius comes 
to mind, but he's already dead.

Besides Grimauld Place, Dumbledore is also involved in the magic that 
protects Harry at the Dursleys' home.  It is Lily's sacrifice which 
makes the protection possible, but Dumbledore has claimed to have a 
part in doing some of the magic involved with the protection.  Is Harry 
as safe at the Dursleys' as he has been in the past?

n_longbottom_01






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 10 15:51:05 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:51:05 -0000
Subject: Comparing Lupin and Harry ( Lupin in Book 7 )
In-Reply-To: <dktbjt+iavg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dkvq99+m6bi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142793

Jen previous:
> Why else did JKR leave the last Marauder standing if not to help 
> bridge the gap between the past Harry is finally exploring and the 
> onerous task he has left to accomplish?
 
> Christina:
> When asked whether JKR would write a "prequel" series about the
> Marauders, she said no because after this series is done, we'll
> know everything there is to know about them.  I am convinced that
> Lupin will be playing a role in relaying this information (because
> really, who else can?).

Jen: This list grows smaller with each passing book! Lupin appears 
to be the only character left with intimate knowledge of Harry's 
past whom Harry trusts completely. In fact, JKR has really woven the 
Lupin character into the narrative very well, placing him in the 
background while the more dramatic and pivotal adults in Harry's 
life take center stage. Finally in HBP Harry learned the reason for 
Lupin's reticence and distance from Harry (a reason hinted at but 
not fully explained in POA), and it's a very believable reason to 
me: Like Harry, Lupin considered himself too dangerous to be 
involved in intimate relationships. Like Harry, he was victimized as 
a boy and has had to live with the consequences of someone else's 
actions, isolating himself for other's safety. The difference 
between them is the degree to which they have chosen to cut 
themselves off from others, and the little fact that Lupin really is 
a direct threat.

If love is the raison d'etre for the story, then Lupin accepting 
Tonks into his life promises an opening up of the character and 
finally, a more meaningful connection with Harry. Harry would seem 
the easier first step on the surface, except as we saw in POA, Lupin 
found Harry particularly difficult to embrace as wholeheartedly as 
Sirius did. The pain of the past, of losing all his friends and 
probably his meaning for living for awhile, was not acted out in 
rage like Sirius and then put behind him. Seeing Harry, a miniature 
of James with Lily's eyes, caused him to fold up inside himself 
instead.

> Jen previous: For starters, he could go to Godric's Hollow with
> Harry, to put his own ghosts to rest as well as fill Harry in on
> vital information

Christina:
> YES.  There's no way Harry can go to GH alone (he doesn't know his
> way around, and it's much too dangerous), and I think that it
> would be awkward and out-of-place for Hermione and Ron to be there
> with him. Putting Harry and Lupin together for GH could kill about
> a billionbirds with one stone, which is attractive considering how
> much needsto be packed into book seven.  I see Lupin as the most
> tragic figure of the entire series (sorry, Harry), and I'd love to
> see him lay his demons to rest. 

Jen: Lol, yes, Harry does need a tour guide to find Godric's Hollow, 
didn't think of that. Although I wonder if Ron and Hermione won't 
also be there as planned? One purpose of HBP was Harry growing 
beyond the need for protection and mentoring, and finding those 
abilities inside himself. So I could see Lupin meeting Harry as a 
man, still with information to share and teaching to offer, but in 
the sense of an equal.

Christina:
>I think that facing GH together would be a nice bridging of the two
> generations.  Talking about James seemed to cheer Lupin up in HBP,
> so I think he would be very receptive to Harry's questions about
> his folks.  

Jen: Hopefully this isn't wishful thinking, but I find a missing 
piece for me is hearing about the parts of Harry's life that were 
all his own, before Voldemort, if there was such a time--the joy his 
parents felt at his birth, their love for him and perhaps a few 
anecdotes about James and Lily as a couple. We now know more about 
Riddle's beginnings than Harry's!

> Christina: 
> I've been wondering that for a long time.  Why bother to have him
> have a case with his name on it all?  Was it really necessary to
> the plot? It has to have some sort of significance, although I
> think this bit of backstory might be type of thing JKR will feed
> us after all of the books are finished.  I figure she has some
> kind of cute little story about it that won't make it into the
> books (it's a really battered case- maybe the Marauders gave it to
> him long ago as a sort of funny gift?).

Jen: Ah well, that would be OK too!!

> Christina:
> Lupin and Lily were prefects together before she started to date
> James.  Lupin is polite, unassuming, and puts time into his
> studies, and I definitely could see why Lily would like him (I can
> just see her running into Lupin in the library or after a meeting
> or something and saying, "You're such a decent person, Remus, why
> do you run about with those arrogant bullies?"). 

Jen: Hee. Well, since those girlfriends she was splashing in the 
lake with seem long gone, Lupin does appear to be the only person 
left who knew her well and probably loved her as a friend. Like you, 
I thought Slughorn might be the key, but the relationship was all 
wrong for that. He remembered her as a favorite student which made 
for a nice story, but he wasn't an intimate.

> Christina
> I agree on the platonic love part, but I'm actually convinced that
> the "awful boy" was Snape, just because I have difficulty accepting
> Petunia describing any of the Marauders in that particular way.
> Even Lupin is so civil and polite that I think Petunia would have
> chosen some other sort of adjective.  I think that Snape, with his
> long greasy hair and rough edges, would be much more likely to be
> described as "awful."  And I think that he would probably be the
> one who would actually know about Dementors.

Jen: I know, Snape was my first choice too, and really was an 'awful 
boy' it looked like! I suppose that's just my denial, not wanting to 
find out he and Lily were friends and *gag* especially not that he 
had a crush on her. But Petunia was so biased by the WW that 
probably anyone Lily brought home would be awful. So I'm still 
considering Snape and even Peter as prime candidates, with Lupin as 
an outside possibility because he did look a bit ragged and poor--
that might be enough for Petunia to consider him awful. :-) 

Jen







From elfundeb at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 17:05:19 2005
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:05:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <1fb.1572d227.30a49c67@aol.com>
References: <1fb.1572d227.30a49c67@aol.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0511100905p1eab6afeue6fdc88f522516a4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142794

 szehms:
In the interview quotes I provided, JKR says a choice like the one given to
Lily is the one and only time LV allowed a witch or wizard the opportunity
to choose to live when faced the possibity of death.
LV told Harry that "your mother (LIly) needn't have died..." (SS pp. 294)
and in POA HArry hears LV tell Lily to step aside I believe 3 times.

WHy not just kill her outright as he did James?
 Debbie:
The simplest answer to that question is that James and Lily had different
roles in defending Harry. James took the aggressive role of attempting to
stop the intruder, which I have always assumed involved going after
Voldemort with a wand. Thus, Voldemort had to assume that he would be killed
if he did not kill first.
 In Lily's role as protector of Harry, she acted as a shield; unlike James,
she probably did not herself threaten Voldemort in any way. Thus, Voldemort
did not need to kill her; all he needed was for her to be out of the way.
Though Voldemort's not the type to avoid unnecessary killings, so my
response above is only a partial answer.

szehms:
Had he killed her as he did James, Harry would not be "the boy who lived"
but by giving Lily the choice she was able to invoke ancient magic sealing
an invisible magical contract of "my life for Harry's".
 Debbie:
Voldemort says in the graveyard that he had forgotten about this form of
magic. Well, that's a typical Evil Overlord mistake. ::rolls eyes::

szehms:
WHy the choice?
 Debbie:
This has been extensively debated over the years, with much speculating on
the TEW EWW line of theories:
 http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#eww
 These theories posit that Voldemort wanted Lily for himself or else that
she was to be a prize for Snape. I personally believe he did it because of
Snape, with or without the LOLLIPOPS* option (for those who don't like
LOLLIPOPS, there's always a Platonic Potions Chum alternative). That option
would relate best to the unsolved mystery of who Snape is/was/ever shall be
working for (and she's going to have to tie up a lot of loose ends in one
book):
 1. Snape must in fact have occupied a powerful position with Voldemort.
2. Snape was unhappy about the decision to target the Potters because of
Lily.
3. Voldemort knew this.
 If this is true, Voldemort may have been concerned about Snape's continued
loyalty before Godric's Hollow, and maybe Lily's death explains why
Voldemort believed that Snape had left him forever.
 This also ties into another question that JKR won't answer: who else, if
anyone, was at Godric's Hollow. I believe we will eventually see the entire
scene unfold, via the witness's memory. So who else was there? Wormtail?
Snape? Or both? My bets are on Pettigrew, or maybe both.
 Debbie
imagining Harry's reaction if he were to discover that Snape was there and
did nothing to prevent the deaths
 *LOLLIPOPS: Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Snape


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From femmevitale27 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 15:54:42 2005
From: femmevitale27 at yahoo.com (femmevitale27)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:54:42 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <1fb.1572d227.30a49c67@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dkvqg2+4atj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142795

> szehms:
> In the interview quotes I provided, JKR says a choice like the 
> one given to Lily is the one and only time LV allowed a witch 
> or wizard the opportunity to choose to live when faced the 
> possibity of death.  LV told Harry that "your mother (Lily) 
> needn't have died..." (SS pp. 294) and in POA Harry hears LV 
> tell Lily to step aside I believe 3 times.
> 
> Why not just kill her outright as he did James? <snip>
> 
> The mystery of the choice I do believe signifies that Lily's 
> life, for some reason, had a degree of meaning to LV, not very 
> much importance as her life was not worth allowing Harry to 
> live, but 'some' importance, the question I ponder is 'why'?  
> This is a question JKR cannot answer as it is too vital a clue 
> to the end of the series.


femmevitale:

This is my first post & I'm a little nervous but here it goes: 

I'm at work now so I don't have the book in front of me; 
therefore, I'll be paraphrasing a bit and my facts might be off 
but I think the general idea is interesting. Namely, why did LV 
give Lily a chance to live? I think the answer is in HBP. 

We know that when DD came to the orphanage to talk to Tom Riddle, 
Tom was happy but not surprised to hear that he was a wizard. He 
immediately assumed this wizarding ability must have come from 
his father because, by Tom's reasoning, if his mother had been 
magical, she would not have let herself die. This is the first 
time in Tom's life where he equates dying with being anti-magical. 
Harry ponders the fact that Merope wouldn't even save herself for 
her son. This is the first time that Harry unwittingly feels pity 
for LV. 

So the parallel then is between Merope and Lily. Merope is a 
mother who chose (in LV's eyes) to be selfish and die instead of 
live for her son. Lily is a woman who chose to be selfless and 
die for her son instead of save her own life. It is the choices 
that their mothers made which make Harry and LV diametric 
opposites. 

So back to the original question: Why did LV give Lily a choice? 
We can take the extreme touchy-feely route and say that LV in 
that moment felt a sense of connection to Harry, the boy whom he 
believed could ultimately topple him?his worthy opponent. By 
sensing his connection to Harry, LV could have felt connected to 
Lily and been "benevolent" enough to give her a choice because he 
was thinking of his own mother. Yes, very unlikely, I know ? but possible. 

Or, LV could have had a special purpose for Lily (who we know was 
immensely talented in charms & potions). Or, a truly evil LV 
wanted Lily to watch her child being killed. Yet it struck me 
that LV once said to Harry, "Your mother needn't have died." It's 
almost as if he is saying it to himself. I think the answer to 
this will be the key to Harry's ability to destroy LV.

femmevitale









From rbeache at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 10 16:15:15 2005
From: rbeache at earthlink.net (Rachel Ellington)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:15:15 -0500
Subject: Why read Harry Potter
References: <1131585237.2476.80934.m33@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c5e611$ef7d83a0$6601a8c0@IBME69E742C294>

No: HPFGUIDX 142796

RE says:
What a great question!
I can honestly say, I shunned reading HP P/SS when it came out and became a popular book.  In general, I am distrustful of popular books and have never taken a liking to fantasy/sci fi.  I have been an avid reader all of my life.  I've read all manner of books from classical to so called chic "lit" (small wretching noise from me, no offense to anyone who enjoys this genre).  I read to be entertained, enlightened, educated, or engrossed in something other than my own life.  That said, there are times when I want a read that I don't have to sift through and ponder and struggle with (Steppenwolfe comes to mind).  For that reason, I picked up the first Harry Potter right after OOTP came out.  I had never seen the movie, read the book, nothing.  I knew that my now small children would be anxious to read these books one day  and I wanted to see about the hype. I had also heard a religious conservative calling for a ban on the books, saying they were promoting "satan worship". I have always considered these sorts of crusades to be distasteful where books are concerned and I doubted seriously that HP was promoting satan worship.  At the least, if it was, I was interested to see how a children's book got around being published with that sort of agenda. (Snicker, snicker).  It reminded me a bit of high school when I had to get permission to read Catcher in the Rye.  Ban a book and I will read it!  

What a shocking surprise!  I plowed through SS in a few days (no small feat w/ little children underfoot!) and was utterly delighted by the book and how engrossed I was with the book. I was hooked. I decided that JKR was quite a talented writer for holding my imagination and creating an entire world that run alongside and intertwined with ours.

Lucky for me, I did not have to wait for the other books to come out. I bought those, plowed through them, read through OOTP twice, listened to them all on tape/cd (why does Bellatrix have a thick accent?  Isn't she a Black by birth?) and then groaned that I would  have to wait so long for the next one.  I for one, enjoyed OOTP. I was terribly saddened to see Sirius go, but I loved the utter mess some of the characters seem to be.  I thoroughly enjoyed the teenage rants and the adult rants and bad judgements.  Umbridge made me highly uncomfortable, masquerading as someone working for the good of children, but even that is strikingly lifelike.  
But as Lupinlore mentioned about HBP:

Lupinlore said:
It is true that OOTP was, IMO, an utter disaster, and HBP found me 
losing 90% if my respect for JKR's writing skills as she essentially 
dealt with the issues raised by OOTP by firmly turning her back on 
them, closing her eyes, sticking her fingers in her ears, and 
screaming "LA! LA! LA!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU OOTP ISSUES!  YOU NEVER 
HAPPENED!" at the top of her lungs.  

RE says:
What happened?  It seems disconnected from OOTP, with many seemingly frivolous details (Tonks, Fleur), too much kissy face, and far too much Snape for my tastes.  I have had a hard time picking it up to read again while I was anxious to read the others again.  I agree with Lupinlore that OOTP issues are clearly ignored.  

That said, I think JKR is a gifted writer, but I do believe any writer would be stretching to their limits at this point.  I am reminded of Anne Rice, whose first few books I loved as a college student. But to me they got progressively thinner and thinner and each ending to me was poor and just a chance for yet another thin book.  HBP as well seems thin in a way to me because all of a sudden we have  a QUEST for horcruxes..with only one book left and so many questions about Harry's loved ones.  I would have preferred to see an introduction to horcruxes earlier on in the series....Of course, there are parts of the books that make me groan, like SPEW and Grawp.  But all in all, JKR provides a good entertaining story and that is no small feat in today's world.  And it is quite easy to just put a book down if you don't enjoy it, as I have done many times in my life.

Just my two cents and please excuse the long post,
RE





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 18:06:18 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:06:18 -0000
Subject: Humor and Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0511100349j140e69cen9b10abca3c2a43e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dl026q+5nin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142797

Debbie wrote:

> For those of us who read Dumbledore's actions as "bad manners"
the humor in
> the scene was harder to appreciate, although I recognized that the
intent
> was not to portray Dumbledore as an ill-mannered person.


a_svirn:
Although I do agree with most of what you've said, I don't think you 
are
right in this instance. I think that it's impossible to appreciate
humour of the episode without appreciating Dumbledore's rudeness.
That's what makes it an example of the "comeuppance humour" as you
termed it ? the disparity between what he does and what he says.
Whether the joke is really funny or not is another matter. I quite
liked it at first, I remember chuckling at agapanthuses and "we
corresponded, of course". I do believe, however, that he went too
far with it.

Debbie:
> On the other hand, I didn't have any problem with Dumbledore
chastising the
> Dursleys for their appalling behavior to Harry all these years.

a_svirn:
Neither do I. Except that his timing leaves a great deal to be
desired. It hardly matters for Harry anymore now, does it? But I do
have problems with the most powerful wizard of all bullying and
humiliating powerless muggles.







From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 18:00:33 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:00:33 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dkvl15+39bb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl01s1+l4l0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142798

colebiancardi:
> So, I guess I am not understanding why you think that we don't 
> know what years the HP series take place in. I think it is 
> pretty much canon, based on Rowling's statements and mugglenet's 
> timeline. We know it takes place from 1991 thru 1997 with the 
> 7th book in 1997/1998. <snip>


I am perfectly well aware of what years the books take place in, 
thank you very much. I'm just pointing out that JKR has a rather 
shaky concept of 'timeline'.

MercuryBlue









From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 18:03:59 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:03:59 -0000
Subject: Fenrir, Invisibility Cloak (was Lupin in Book 7) 
In-Reply-To: <dkvmuc+btpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl022f+th1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142799

> Pippin:
> <snip>
> Worse than that, we don't know what happened to Fenrir -- 
> he was unconscious last time we saw him, but then what? 
> And Harry's invisibility cloak seems to be missing...


The Cloak was last seen on top of the Astronomy Tower. Harry 
could've gone to get it at any time. And Fenrir is undoubtedly 
in custody. The Aurors wouldn't be sloppy enough to let him go.

MercuryBlue








From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 18:21:09 2005
From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:21:09 EST
Subject: TEW EWW, Remus and Lily, Godric's Hollow, and LOLLIPOPS
Message-ID: <193.4ca1617e.30a4e995@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142800

Kaylee Tonks-Lupin here: 
I wonder if I might get a L.O.O.N. badge for this, Debbie, but I'd just  like 
to point out that LOLLIPOPS stands for "Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our  
Poor *Severus*", not *Snape* *cough* Professor Snape. Since that's totally OT  
anyway, I think, I'll add that I'm more in the ACID POPS camp than the 
LOLLIPOPS  one, but I suppose Snape/Lily is *okay* as a theory *grins* I like it 
better  than ESE!Lupin, anyway, or Remus/Lily (except as platonic friends, which 
I think  they were.) I'm wondering now if we'll hear Remus finally tell all 
about Lily.  I'd love to hear it. I hope that in Book 7, Remus goes with Harry 
(and the rest  of the trio, perhaps?) to Godric's Hollow. I think they both 
need it. 
 
Cheers,
 
Kaylee
 
In a message dated 11/10/2005 10:07:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes:
<snip>

Debbie:
This has been extensively debated over the years, with much  speculating on
the TEW EWW line of  theories:
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#eww
These  theories posit that Voldemort wanted Lily for himself or else that
she was  to be a prize for Snape. I personally believe he did it because of
Snape,  with or without the LOLLIPOPS* option (for those who don't like
LOLLIPOPS,  there's always a Platonic Potions Chum alternative). That option
would  relate best to the unsolved mystery of who Snape is/was/ever shall  be
working for (and she's going to have to tie up a lot of loose ends in  one
book):
1. Snape must in fact have occupied a powerful position with  Voldemort.
2. Snape was unhappy about the decision to target the Potters  because of
Lily.
3. Voldemort knew this.
If this is true, Voldemort  may have been concerned about Snape's continued
loyalty before Godric's  Hollow, and maybe Lily's death explains why
Voldemort believed that Snape  had left him forever.
This also ties into another question that JKR won't  answer: who else, if
anyone, was at Godric's Hollow. I believe we will  eventually see the entire
scene unfold, via the witness's memory. So who  else was there? Wormtail?
Snape? Or both? My bets are on Pettigrew, or  maybe both.
Debbie
imagining Harry's reaction if he were to discover  that Snape was there and
did nothing to prevent the deaths
*LOLLIPOPS:  Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Snape


[Non-text portions  of this message have been removed]

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 18:09:00 2005
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:09:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody else?
In-Reply-To: <dktndm+5n22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051110180900.54211.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142801

> Alla:
> > But defying casual evil does not mean that you were an evil 
> > person in the first place, IMO. It seems to me that it is 
> > not that casual if you turned to Grand evil first. 

Montavilla:
> But you said "after such person realized" which implied to me 
> that he (or any hypothetical person) might not have realized 
> how truly evil the Death Eaters were when joining.  
>
> Joining it in the first place is a separate thing. <snip> 
>
> Why Snape joined the Death Eaters is ultimately less important 
> than his conversion back to the side of Good.  If he did that, 
> then he acted heroically.  


Hi,
 
I'm new here but I have had this discussion with several people 
and I think what is important is what Snape did while he was a 
Death Eater. If he helped torture people then he is evil no 
matter what side he tries to help in the end.
 
Remember we are defined by our actions and there are actions that 
don't go away because you say you are sorry. Some actions can 
only be done by an evil person. Until we get a glimpse of that I 
don't think we can say either way.
 
Joe







From feenyjam at msu.edu  Thu Nov 10 18:48:09 2005
From: feenyjam at msu.edu (greenfirespike)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:48:09 -0000
Subject: Fenrir, Invisibility Cloak (was Lupin in Book 7)
In-Reply-To: <dl022f+th1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl04l9+hmus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142802

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" 
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:
>
> > Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > Worse than that, we don't know what happened to Fenrir -- 
> > he was unconscious last time we saw him, but then what? 
> > And Harry's invisibility cloak seems to be missing...
> 
>
MercuryBlue wrote:
 
> The Cloak was last seen on top of the Astronomy Tower. Harry 
> could've gone to get it at any time. And Fenrir is undoubtedly 
> in custody. The Aurors wouldn't be sloppy enough to let him go.


Greenfirespike says:

I must be our best assumption that Fenrir was taken into custody, but 
by no means is it certain.  If anything, DE's have proven themselves 
to be mostly incompetent in completing a specific task, but all the 
while remain ever elusive.  







From lealess at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 19:01:11 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:01:11 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody else?
In-Reply-To: <20051110180900.54211.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dl05dn+vfp5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142803

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at y...> wrote:
>
> > Alla:
> > > But defying casual evil does not mean that you were an evil 
> > > person in the first place, IMO. It seems to me that it is 
> > > not that casual if you turned to Grand evil first. 
> 
> Montavilla:
> > But you said "after such person realized" which implied to me 
> > that he (or any hypothetical person) might not have realized 
> > how truly evil the Death Eaters were when joining.  
> >
> > Joining it in the first place is a separate thing. <snip> 
> >
> > Why Snape joined the Death Eaters is ultimately less important 
> > than his conversion back to the side of Good.  If he did that, 
> > then he acted heroically.  
> 
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I'm new here but I have had this discussion with several people 
> and I think what is important is what Snape did while he was a 
> Death Eater. If he helped torture people then he is evil no 
> matter what side he tries to help in the end.
>  
> Remember we are defined by our actions and there are actions that 
> don't go away because you say you are sorry. Some actions can 
> only be done by an evil person. Until we get a glimpse of that I 
> don't think we can say either way.
>  
> Joe
>

What we know is that Snape is "no more a Death Eater" than 
Dumbledore is, and he has a propensity for "slithering out of action" 
according to a highly-placed Death Eater.  This indicates to me that 
if Snape had been physically torturing people or participating in 
other evil Death Eater activities, we would have heard of it by now.  
I can't see new evil being introduced in the 7th book.  He has enough 
helpings of questionable behavior and/or motivation on his plate as 
it is.

lealess







From papa at marvels.org  Thu Nov 10 19:19:14 2005
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:19:14 -0500
Subject: Apparition and other things before being 17 
In-Reply-To: <dl05dn+vfp5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <42FD96840002296A@mta9.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142804

mercurybluesmng wrote:
Funny, I seem to recall a fair number of not-yet-seventeen-year-olds learning
to Apparate in Hogwarts's Great Hall. Case in point: Harry.

Bruce Alan Wilson: 
In OOTP it is speculated that outside of the British Isles kids may be allowed
to apparate earlier than 17 (never confirmed or denied).  I think that underage
apparation is more a 'malum in prohibendum' than a 'malum in se'.

RM:
Oh yea, that's exactly what I thought, I think. Now where in the hell
did I put that Latin phrasebook :-)

I wonder how many of these things are not so much age sensitive as ability
sensitive. Young witches aren't given time-turners because they can't handle
it, but Hermione is given one to attend classes because they think she can
be trusted. When Harry breaks the rules sometimes it seems like a great
hairy deal and other times it is just brushed off due to who he is, or the
outcome. Kind of like we know those under 17 can't handle this so it is
prohibited, but if you do it successfully it's ok. It seems to me like a
lot of "rules" are pretty flexible. Or do you think it's more like a traffic
signal? If you ignore it and nobody sees it and nobody gets hurt then it's
a minor thing, if you cause a wreck it's a whole different matter.

RM





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 19:28:41 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:28:41 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody else?
In-Reply-To: <dl05dn+vfp5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0719+aild@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142805

>> lealess:
> 
> What we know is that Snape is "no more a Death Eater" than 
> Dumbledore is, 

a_svirn:
Hmm. I believe his exact words were: "He is NOW no more a Death 
Eater than I am" (emphasis mine ? a_svirn). And technically speaking 
he wasn't a DE at the time, regardless of his ultimate loyalties. 
Voldemort was gone, after all, the Mark too was gone. And Dumbledore 
has a way of "treating the truth with great caution" without 
actually lying...

> lealess:
and he has a propensity for "slithering out of action" 
> according to a highly-placed Death Eater.  

a_svirn:
Except that we've seen him in action, have we not? 

> lealess:
This indicates to me that 
> if Snape had been physically torturing people or participating in 
> other evil Death Eater activities, we would have heard of it by 
now.  

a_svirn:
Now, where would be the fun of it? It would have tarnished "the 
mysterious, ambiguous, etc. Potion Master" image forever. 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 19:41:22 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:41:22 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dkvq99+m6bi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl07p2+rqrj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142806

Jen wrote: <snip> I know, Snape was my first choice too, and really
was an 'awful boy' it looked like! I suppose that's just my denial,
not wanting to find out he and Lily were friends and *gag* especially
not that he had a crush on her. But Petunia was so biased by the WW
that probably anyone Lily brought home would be awful. So I'm still
considering Snape and even Peter as prime candidates, with Lupin as an
outside possibility because he did look a bit ragged and poor-- that
might be enough for Petunia to consider him awful. :-) 

Carol responds:
Why not go with the obvious: *James* as the "awful boy"? We know that
he was "an arrogant little berk" (Sirius Black's description of
himself and his friend James in OoP, with the Pensieve scene as
evidence for the accuracy of the description), and he may well have
been somewhat contemptuous of poor Muggle Petunia--which would explain
her hatred of him, including an unwillingness to speak his name. Harry
obviously thinks that's who she's referring to: "If you mean my mum
and dad, why don't you use their names?" (OoP Am. ed. 32). (Petunia
refers to Lily as "*her*" [italics in original] as if she's avoiding
her sister's name. She'd have even less reason to mention her sister's
wizard boyfriend or fiance or whatever he was at that time.

Granted, we don't get Petunia's viewpoint directly in SS/PS chapter 1,
but we have "they normally pretended she didn't have a sister" (SS Am.
ed. 7) and "The Potters knew very well what he [Vernon] and Petunia
thought about them and their kind" (8). In chapter 4 we have her
reaction to Lily ("my dratted sister being what she was . . . a
freak," 53) followed by "and then she met that Potter at school and
they left and got married and had you, and of course I knew you'd be
just the same, just as--as--*abnormal*. . . ." (53).

If James (aka "that Potter") is "strange" and "abnormal" (presumably a
"freak" like Lily) I see no reason at all why he can't be "the awful
boy" who told Lily about Dementors in Petunia's hearing (as Harry thinks).

Yes, I know that Harry is often wrong, but why automatically assume
that James can't possibly be the "awful boy," especially given
Petunia's known dislike of him? 

Obviously Petunia knows more about the magical world than she lets on
and she has been suppressing both her feelings and her knowledge all
this time (we'll undoubtedly hear more from her in Book 7--I'm hoping
that she'll show Harry the letter tha DD left on the doorstep), but I
see no reason to suspect that her resentment of Lily and her dislike
of "that Potter" are anything other than real--in which case, "that
awful boy" is at least as likely to be James as to be one of his
friends--or Severus Snape, who probably had no desire to step into a
Muggle house--and would have been about as welcome there as Kreacher
in the Dursleys' sitting room.

Maybe "that awful boy" is someone else, but why not go with the
straightforward reading here? Doesn't anyone besides me think that
Harry's right and the boy is James?

Carol, who thinks that Petunia, despite some knowledge of the WW and
Voldemort and what happened to Harry's parents, is just a jealous and
resentful Muggle who fears magic in general and "abnormality" in
particular






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 19:46:20 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <dkvq5j+uo72@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051110194620.36220.qmail@web34915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142807


CH3ed:

I agree with KJ and Steve that the fidelius charm was not lifted with DD's death. I'm still wondering if Harry would be able to tell anyone who hadn't already been told by DD of how to find 12GP while DD was alive where 12GP is now that Harry owns it, but still ISN'T the SK? Any ideas?

CH3ed


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From darqali at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 19:14:44 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:14:44 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dksvnm+bqhd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0674+e9vv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142808

Colebiancardi:
> ahh, but the entrance to the Chamber wasn't a flushing toilet, it 
was 
> part of the sinks - which is plumbing and the Romans, if not the 
> Empire, did invent.  They had running water, indoor plumbing and 
> sewer system in place which "wasn't surpassed in capability until 
> very modern times." from http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-
> aqueducts.php
<SNIP> 
> so regardless of the bathrooms in the WW world, it seems that the 
> Romans and also the Greeks had these systems in place way before 
1000 
> years ago.  Did Hogwarts upgrade?  Sure.  But I think the pipes and 
> all had been laid into the foundations when it was built, but based 
> on what we know of Roman technology, it seems that the WW probably 
> looked to that, as that does predate Hogwarts.  
<SNIP>


Darqali:
The subject of my post was not the Romans, nor who in the Western 
world first used some form of indoor plumbing.

It is *Hogwarts School*, built by Wizards about 1,000 years before 
present, and what it tells us about Wizard use of "technology"  in 
that time ... and what later events in the HP story tell us also 
about Wizards and their use of things similar to what we Muggles use 
today.

Hogwarts was built by Wizards in an age when Muggles in the area did 
*not* have indoor plumbing.

S. Slythern built within the Castle a hidden chamber, The Chamber of 
Secrets; with a hidden entrance that could be opened only by someone 
who spoke parseltounge, as he himself did.  The entrance was in the 
pipes in a girl's {! ... not a *boy's*} toilet!

It is *reasonable* to assume that the entrance had not been *changed* 
due to up-grades in the Castles fixtures, for the snake etched on the 
pipe was the magical devise Harry needed to trigger by speaking 
parseltounge demanding the entrance "open" for him.  One cannot 
imagine Wizard builders finding the hidden entrance, deciding to 
incorporate it into more moderning plumbing, and being *able* to 
endow the pipes with this magic without notice of anyone .... nor why 
they would do so, either.  The chamber was hidden; until Tom R found 
it, it remained un-opened; and *only* Harry & Co figured it out after 
Tom did {Ginny, of course, did open the Chamber too, but only upon 
Diary!Tom's instruction}.

So the seemingly *modern* {to Muggle eyes} Girl's Toilet was 
constructed at the same time as the Chamber ... about 1000 years in 
the past.  [One *could* argue, I suppose, that the origional room had 
sinks in ancient Roman fashion, but *not* flushing toilets, which 
were added later; but may I point out that Roman tiolets were usually 
unisex, and wholly open air affairs, and that they were *not* in the 
"bath" room; the BATHING area was not the same as the latrine .... 
Romans did *not* incorporate "girl's toilets" {or boy's toilets} in 
any building.  Their latrines did not feature *sinks*, either.]

Further, we have *more information* about Wizard plumbing in Order  
o.t. Pheonox, when Arthur W. has to deal with the jinxed Muggle 
version.  He says the Muggles call "plumbles", who are unable to fix 
the problem {of course, because it is a magical problem, a jinx}.  
But by explaining this to Harry, Arthur makes it plain that Wizards 
don't use the services of Plumbers ..... yet we know they have 
*plumbing*.

Now, getting back to the Chocolate Frog cards:  Harry's cards include 
figures famous in the Muggle world *as well as the Wizarding world*:  
Circe, Paracelsus, Merlin and the like.  Clearly, the WW and the 
Muggle world have not *always* been seperate; of old, people were 
often famous in *both* the Muggle and Wizard communities.

We know the Wizards were using plumbing in an era when the Muggles 
were not, *and* that Wizard plumbing doesn't require the services of 
plumbers to keep working {wizards don't even know the proper name of 
a plumber}.  We know this really is ancient technology, because the 
contents flush directly into the lake {I don't live in Great Britian 
but I would *hope* that their modern plumbing does not directly dump 
raw sewage into lakes and other fresh water sources .....}.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Wizards have used a 
wonderous form of this technology for time-out-of-mind compared to 
the Muggle world.

Could they just have retained knowledge from the anceint Muggle world 
that Muggles themselves allowed to fall into disuse?  Perhaps; but 
then, how to account for the flushing toilets? {NO, Roman toilets 
didn't really flush like ours do .... and *yes* I have read the 
recent articles in Archeology  magazine on the subject}. And there is 
the fact that Wizard plumbing remains in service  without the 
assistance of plumbers, while ours does not .... No, I stick by my 
origional thought:  Wizards are behind our modern plumbing; and 
*theirs* works better than *ours*; and perhaps the person who brought 
the idea back to the Muggle world was a squib, or the Muggle partner 
of a Wizard ....for that matter, seeing that about half the WW 
selects Muggle partners when they marry; and given that the WW 
produces the occasional Squib as well, why assume *any* given 
technology or innovation {like, the musical forms discussed} are 
purely Muggle in origin?  The Wierd Sisters sound to me like  they 
would fit in with many modern groups .... which came first?  Muggle 
groups with their music innovation, or Wizard groups?  Sure, we have 
Muggle radio .... who is to say Wizarding Wireless doesn't *predate* 
it?  With some enterprizing Squib adding *ekletricity* to make the 
concept work for Muggles?  and so on ....

Darqali








From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Nov 10 20:02:06 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:02:06 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dl0674+e9vv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl08vu+oot7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142809

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" <darqali at y...> wrote:
 No, I stick by my 
> origional thought:  Wizards are behind our modern plumbing; and 
> *theirs* works better than *ours*; and perhaps the person who 
brought 
> the idea back to the Muggle world was a squib, or the Muggle 
partner 
> of a Wizard ....for that matter, seeing that about half the WW 
> selects Muggle partners when they marry; and given that the WW 
> produces the occasional Squib as well, why assume *any* given 
> technology or innovation {like, the musical forms discussed} are 
> purely Muggle in origin?  The Wierd Sisters sound to me like  they 
> would fit in with many modern groups .... which came first?  Muggle 
> groups with their music innovation, or Wizard groups?  Sure, we 
have 
> Muggle radio .... who is to say Wizarding Wireless doesn't 
*predate* 
> it?  With some enterprizing Squib adding *ekletricity* to make the 
> concept work for Muggles?  and so on ....
> 

except there is no such thing as Wizards :)  Sorry, there are tons of 
ancient ruins in Britian and Europe from the old Roman Empire - if 
Wizards are so advanced with plumbing, why are they so woefully out 
of touch with the concept of iPods or its forefather, the Walkman?  
Or that they still use candles and torches instead of electricity?

colebiancardi









From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Nov 10 20:11:30 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:11:30 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl07p2+rqrj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl09hi+ndkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142810

  
> Carol responds:
> Why not go with the obvious: *James* as the "awful boy"? 

Hickengruendler:

I think mostly because of this quote: 

"David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know 
about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows?

JK Rowling: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, 
that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer 
is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being 
told about them basically.

Is that true?

JK Rowling: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to 
it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to 
say what else there is because it relates to book 7."
 
>From here: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-
edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm

Note that she openly admitted that Petunia overheard Lily, but did 
not say with whom Lily spoke, even though Harry automatically assumed 
in the book that Petunia spoke about his parents. This seems a big 
hint to me, that the person, with whom Lily spoke, is not James.
 
Hickengruendler






From darqali at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 19:39:51 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:39:51 -0000
Subject: Our fantasies about Dursleys and Grimmauld Place WAS: Re: CHAPDISC3: HBP 3, WILL AND WONT
In-Reply-To: <dkte8q+3n5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl07m7+ob48@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142811

MercuryBlue:
I keep seeing this scene...<snip>.where Harry arrives at the Dursleys' and Vernon immediately demands Harry's house as compensation for all those years of having to feed, clothe, and house Harry's ungrateful arse.<snip>..,Harry should give it to him <snip> as fair compensation for all those years of next-thing-to-starvation, worn-out hand-me-down clothing that's far far too big, having to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs, and all the other varieties of abuse inflicted on Harry's unfortunate head.


Darqali:
I myself have a fantasy where LV comes after Harry on his 17 th 
birthday, at the Dursley's; and he [Harry] agrees to "save" them by 
hiding them at Number Twelve, Grimould Place.  I would just *love* to 
have Petunia get acquainted with Sirius' Mum .....  *snicker*  And 
Petunia could use her super-cleaning powers to good effect there ....

Darqali.









From ornawn at 013.net  Thu Nov 10 20:41:01 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:41:01 -0000
Subject: Etiquette - Smart glasses with mead
Message-ID: <dl0b8t+u1m9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142812

>bboyminn:

>The Dursleys were not required to drink, only to accept the glasses.
>I personally think if they had grasped the glasses out of the air 
and
>set them down on the coffee table, that would have been the end of 
it.
>But they tried to ignore the glasses, and the glasses became more
>insistent about fulfilling their task of getting the Dursleys to 
take
>them.

Orna:
I think that besides the humorous or rude aspect (depends on who 
reads it), there is some symbolic communication in this act. I 
thought that the whole essence of the Dursleys is to pretend magic 
doesn't exist, and illusion themselves that by behaving as if 
nothing like this is existing and by bullying and denigrating Harry, 
who represents magic existence ? it won't exist, or more so ? 
they`ll be able to vanish it. DD's behavior tells them exactly that: 
I exist, even if you ignore me, magic exists, and the more they will 
ignore it, the more insistent it will trouble them. That's why, IMO, 
the second that Vernon acknowledges the existence of the glasses (by 
shouting quite rudely), DD gets rid of them. And BTW, I don't think 
it was intimidation, which made them ignore the glasses, after all 
Vernon did ask about Sirius being dead, his leaving Harry a house. 
So it seems that not saying anything about the glasses, or accepting 
the drink had to do, more about actively denying the existence of 
magic, than their fear. 

I think it's important, because the biggest mistreatment of Harry 
IMHO was this continuing denial and hatred towards his very core 
existence. 









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 10 20:46:06 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:46:06 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. (long)
In-Reply-To: <dl01s1+l4l0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0bie+s3bt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142813

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" 
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:

colebiancardi:
> > So, I guess I am not understanding why you think that we don't 
> > know what years the HP series take place in. I think it is 
> > pretty much canon, based on Rowling's statements and mugglenet's 
> > timeline. We know it takes place from 1991 thru 1997 with the 
> > 7th book in 1997/1998. <snip>
 
MercuryBlue:
> I am perfectly well aware of what years the books take place in, 
> thank you very much. I'm just pointing out that JKR has a rather 
> shaky concept of 'timeline'.

Geoff:
Hey, hey. Cool down. There's no need to bite colebiancardi's head 
off. We are a friendly lot here (hopefully).

You did give a distinct impression of being uncertain - after all, 
you did write in message 142746:

"Actually, the HP books take place in some vague 'a few years ago',
as evidenced by the Playstation before there was Playstation and
other such details. And can't you just see Sirius and James watching
Star Wars?"









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 10 20:46:59 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:46:59 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl09hi+ndkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0bk3+ciim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142814

Hickengruendler:
> Note that she openly admitted that Petunia overheard Lily, but did 
> not say with whom Lily spoke, even though Harry automatically assumed 
> in the book that Petunia spoke about his parents. This seems a big 
> hint to me, that the person, with whom Lily spoke, is not James.

Ceridwen:
But Lily would have had a reason to bring James home besides having a 
friend from school over for a holiday - she married him.  She would 
have wanted to introduce him to her parents, they would have talked 
(about DADA class among other things?)during his stay, and Petunia 
overheard them.

I'd love to think it was Snape.  Could you imagine?  Petunia meeting 
Snape again after many years:  "You!"

Snape:  "You!"

Both go screaming into the night

Ceridwen.







From papa at marvels.org  Thu Nov 10 20:20:08 2005
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:20:08 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fidelity of 12 GP  :WAS: CHAPDISC3
In-Reply-To: <20051110194620.36220.qmail@web34915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42FD9684000229DF@mta9.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142815


CH3ed:

I agree with KJ and Steve that the fidelius charm was not lifted with DD's
death. I'm still wondering if Harry would be able to tell anyone who hadn't
already been told by DD of how to find 12GP while DD was alive where 12GP
is now that Harry owns it, but still ISN'T the SK? Any ideas?

RM:
I agree as well that the secret would have to continue, otherwise the ability
to kill the SK and release the secret would make it a pretty useless protection.
 I think it is very possible that the binding carries over to the new owner;
perhaps Harry has to select a new SK? We have other examples of binding
magic that carries over, for example, the binding of house elves to the
inheriting family member when the owner dies. 







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Nov 10 20:56:51 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:56:51 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl0bk3+ciim@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0c6j+oi2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142816

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...> 
wrote:
 
> 
> Ceridwen:
> But Lily would have had a reason to bring James home besides having 
a 
> friend from school over for a holiday - she married him.  She would 
> have wanted to introduce him to her parents, they would have talked 
> (about DADA class among other things?)during his stay, and Petunia 
> overheard them.

Hickengruendler:

I totally agree with you. That's why I don't think that it's James. 
It makes absolute sense for him to be it, and if he's the done, who 
spoke with Lily, than why wouldn't JKR just say. "Petunia overheard a 
conversation between Harry's parents..." or something like that. 
Instead JKR specifically mentioned that Petunia overheard Lily 
talking with someone, not mentioning the name. That suggests to me, 
that it is not the most obvious candidate, who even was mentioned in 
the book. Why should JKR make that a secret, if the speaker was 
James? By the way, I think this argument, is also partly true for 
Remus and Sirius. Why make a secret out of it, that Lily had some 
close contact with them, even if it was at her own house? I can not 
see, what it would offer for the storyline.
 
I think it is Snape, and that this is the reason, why Severus changed 
sides. He still had some feelings for Lily (even if it was simply a 
very strange sort of friendship, because she defended him), and 
didn't want anything to happen to her. But as alternative candidates, 
I won't rule out Wormtail or Regulus.

Hickengruendler







From ornawn at 013.net  Thu Nov 10 21:13:45 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:13:45 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <dl0d69+q4bk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142817

>femmevitale:

>So the parallel then is between Merope and Lily. Merope is a
>mother who chose (in LV's eyes) to be selfish and die instead of
>live for her son. Lily is a woman who chose to be selfless and
>die for her son instead of save her own life. It is the choices
>that their mothers made which make Harry and LV diametric
>opposites.

Orna:
 My understanding of what's going on there is that Voldermort is 
driven by something deeper than he knows. When he says that his 
mother couldn't be magic, I think he says, his mother couldn't have 
loved him. That's where Harry feels pity for him. Now what would he 
do? He can either tell himself, that something was wrong with him, 
not being able to elicit his mother's "magic". Or tell himself, that 
that's the way mothers are ? selfish and not loving. When he tells 
Lily to step aside, and save herself, I think it reflects his 
conviction, that mothers are selfish, like his mother was. If Lily 
would have stepped aside, it would strengthen that feeling, and 
lessen his feeling himself unworthy.  But on some deeper level, he 
challenges his belief ? because he puts it to a test. He sneers at 
her as a silly girl, and devaluates her act, but still ? the scene 
is set. And when Lily acts like a real loving mother would act, I 
think, that's when his power brakes in some way ? something is 
shattered inside him. Not surprisingly, although he knows a lot of 
magic, he forgets that this love leaves a magic protection. 
Voldermort being what he is, he plays it down, but the importance of 
it seems to have penetrated him in some way ? that's why he tells 
Harry, that she didn't have to die. All MHO.

And welcome aboard.
Orna 










From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 10 21:41:07 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:07 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dkr3e3+ndc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0epj+b89u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142818

justcarol67 wrote:
> (snipped)

> So, what side plots (aside from Snape and RAB, which have been
> thoroughly discussed) really, really need to be resolved and what 
role
> will the sidekicks, subordinate heroes, and other minor characters
> (Luna, Neville, Dobby, Percy, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, 
Slughorn . . . . )
> play in resolving them? (Well, okay, we can include Snape here in
> relation to future actions as opposed to past motivations and 
events.)
> 
> What themes other than choice and Love and where Snape's loyalties 
lie
> (house unity? wizards' attitudes toward other magical beings?) can 
and
> should be woven into the plot without extending the book to 800 
pages?
> 


Lucianam:

One side plot that intrigues me a lot is the mistery about the DADA 
position. I think JKR needs to explain that! I suppose Voldemort 
wanted the position for some Horcrux-related reason, but I can't 
imagine exactly why. 

Assuming Voldemort was after Godric's sword or the Sorting Hat, for 
example (any more ideas to possible horcruxes in Hogwarts?), how 
exactly would his teaching DADA help him get them? I guess any 
teacher in Hogwarts has the same chance to steal such objects as the 
Defense teacher. Can't see what's so special in that job!

I'd also like to know why Lupin chose Defense. I guess he wanted to 
prove he could deal with Dark Creatures, even if he was a Dark 
Creature himself - a sort of personal challenge. I don't think this 
is important enough for JKR to include in B7, but I've been reading 
ESE!Lupin threads, and ever since I'm very interested in everything 
Remus.

And about minor characters, we definitely need to know if Slughorn 
is a goog guy or not. I wasn't convinced of his loyalty in HBP, and 
JKR needs to explain exactly what he saw in Harry to make him accept 
the Potions teacher position (in my opinion, he saw a goldmine in 
Harry, but I'd like to know).

If JKR includes a mention to Stubby Boardman in B7 and finally 
confirms the existence of the Crumpled Horn Snorkack, I'll shed 
tears of joy (mirth, actually).

Lucianam








From zehms at aol.com  Thu Nov 10 21:29:34 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:29:34 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <df.207fdc8f.30a515be@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142819

 
Femmevitale writes:
So the parallel then is between Merope and Lily. Merope is a 
mother who chose (in LV's eyes) to be selfish and die instead of 
live for her son. Lily is a woman who chose to be selfless and 
die for her son instead of save her own life. It is the choices 
that their mothers made which make Harry and LV diametric 
opposites.


Szehms wrote:
Femmevitale,I would have to rule out LV giving Lily a choice to live for any reason based on compassion.  I think in HBP we saw that even as a child Riddle was never one to have any use for compassion, his narcissism was as prevelant early on in childhood as it is as an adult.
 
I did entertain the notion that LV, knowing his 'weak' mother chose to die rather than raise her own son, wanted to give Lily a choice.

Not out of kindness and compassion, but perhaps as a test, was Lily as weak as his own mother?  If given the choice wouldn't anyone rather save their own skin?  Perhaps he was authentically surprised that Lily would rather die than move aside saving her own life?

However, I think it is more likely that this 'choice' was based on nothing less than Voldemort's self-interests.  What those interests are I do not know, I do think that Snape could have had some sort of influence on Voldemort, somehow convincing LV that it was in LV's interests to let Harry's mother live.

I appreciate your response.

szehms  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 10 21:38:16 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:38:16 -0500
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <dksrt4+3jrc@eGroups.com>
References: <dksrt4+3jrc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4373BDC8.2020608@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142820

mercurybluesmng wrote:
> Lily was not a threat. Lily was a minor nuisance. Very minor. Like an 
> ant on your picnic blanket. You might squash it if you felt like it, 
> but you're just as likely to flick it back into the grass. Or else 
> Voldemort just wanted to torment her by killing her son in front of her.

Bart:
Or, to repeat my own theory, Voldemort was promising her to Snape as a 
reward for his service, making her more valuable alive than dead. There 
have been numerous implications in the book that if Prof. Snape is not 
the world's greatest expert on potions, he's way up there.

	Bart







From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Nov 10 21:49:11 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:49:11 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl0c6j+oi2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0f8n+ulak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142821

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" 
<hickengruendler at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" 
<ceridwennight at h...> 
> wrote:
>  
> > 
> > Ceridwen:
> > But Lily would have had a reason to bring James home besides 
having 
> a 
> > friend from school over for a holiday - she married him.  She 
would 
> > have wanted to introduce him to her parents, they would have 
talked 
> > (about DADA class among other things?)during his stay, and 
Petunia 
> > overheard them.
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> I totally agree with you. That's why I don't think that it's James. 
> It makes absolute sense for him to be it, and if he's the done, who 
> spoke with Lily, than why wouldn't JKR just say. "Petunia overheard 
a 
> conversation between Harry's parents..." or something like that. 
> Instead JKR specifically mentioned that Petunia overheard Lily 
> talking with someone, not mentioning the name. That suggests to me, 
> that it is not the most obvious candidate, who even was mentioned 
in 
> the book. Why should JKR make that a secret, if the speaker was 
> James? By the way, I think this argument, is also partly true for 
> Remus and Sirius. Why make a secret out of it, that Lily had some 
> close contact with them, even if it was at her own house? I can not 
> see, what it would offer for the storyline.
>  
> I think it is Snape, and that this is the reason, why Severus 
changed 
> sides. He still had some feelings for Lily (even if it was simply a 
> very strange sort of friendship, because she defended him), and 
> didn't want anything to happen to her. But as alternative 
candidates, 
> I won't rule out Wormtail or Regulus.
> 
> Hickengruendler
>

I'm wondering how old Lily was when she brought home this "nasty 
boy"?  Was she around 11 or 12?  I cannot see her doing this at an 
older age, after the pensive memory in OotP.  Also, if she brought 
Snape home over the holidays for a visit, don't you think that James 
or Sirius would have noticed that?  Hogwarts isn't a small school, 
but James seems to have liked Lily for a while.   In fact, if Lily, 
as a Griffidor, had a close, friendly relationship with Snape, a 
Slytherin, when they were first starting out at Hogwarts, wouldn't 
that have been noticed?  In Harry's times, and also based on the 
MMWP's friendship, seems like that close friendships, ones where you 
would invite them home for the holidays, would be noticed and be 
common knowledge amongst that boy(James) who really liked Lily - he 
would have found out everything there is to know about her, don't you 
think?

I could see it being Sirius as the nasty boy - a nasty boy doesn't 
have to mean ugly or greasy(poor Snape; regardless of which camp you 
live in with him, he is always getting the short end of the stick 
when it comes to preconceived notions), it could also mean someone 
with a nasty sense of humor, which is what I see when I visualize 
teen Sirius.  Oh, how he must have tormented Petunia!!  And Sirius 
would know a thing or two about dementors.  Or James for that 
matter.  We know Petunia thought that James was a lay-about, so why 
not make him nasty as well?

colebiancardi
(could be wrong; it could have been Snape; however, I think that may 
have been early on when they first started Hogwarts, not as older 
teens)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 21:55:24 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:55:24 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody els
In-Reply-To: <dl0719+aild@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0fkc+qdn9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142822

lealess wrote:
> and he has a propensity for "slithering out of action" according to
a highly-placed Death Eater.  
> 
> a_svirn responded:
> Except that we've seen him in action, have we not? 

Carol responds:
I assume that you're referring to Snape killing Dumbledore on the
tower, which is not a straightforward instance of Snape "in action" as
a Death eater. Bellatrix's distrust of him and her reference to him as
"slithering out of action" do suggest, as lealess indicated, that he
has not regularly participated in the sorts of Muggle-baiting and
torturing that Bellatrix expects of a loyal DE. 

We have, in fact, no direct evidence of anything Snape did as a DE
except join in the first place and report the first part of the
Prophecy to LV (before Harry was born and probably, IMO, without
interpreting its contents in the way that LV did). We know that he
went to Dumbledore with "a tale of deepest remorse," that Dumbledore
believed his repentance to be sincere, that Snape (still a very young
man in his early twenties) began spying for DD *before* Voldemort's
fall "at great personal risk" (GoF, "The Pensieve," quoted from
memory) and that he was given the Potions position rather than the
DADA position that he applied for (on LV's orders, as DD almost
certainly knew) again *before* Godric's Hollow, as Snape reminds
Bellatrix in "Spinner's End." (Clearly, he was *not* at Godric's
Hollow; he was already at Hogwarts as of the beginning of the term.)
That is *all* we know of his early activities (except for his own
implication in PoA that he tried to warn James Potter that Sirius
Black was a spy and a traitor but Potter was too "arrogant" to believe
him--that SS was wrong about the identity of the traitor doesn't
negate his attempt to warn Potter of his danger, assuming that the
statement is true).

What's interesting to me is that we know more or less what other Death
Eaters did: Bellatrix Lestrange and her all-male entourage (the
Lestrange brothers and Barty Jr.) Crucio'd people, most notoriously
the Longbottoms. Macnair is a beast killer who likes to swing his axe
(interestingly employed as envoy to the giants as well). Karakaroff
testifies that Rookwood was an informant, Mulciber was an Imperius
specialist, Travers helped murder the McKinnons, Dolohov tortured
countless Muggles and nonsupporters of the Dark Lord (with Karkaroff's
help, according to Moody), and so forth. But Snape is not implicated
in any of these crimes. Karkaroff says only, "I assure you, Severus
Snape is a Death Eater," which is followed by Dumbledore's statement
that Snape "rejoined our side" and is "now no more a Death Eater than
I am" (GoF Am. ed. 390-91). ("Rejoined," is, of course, an intriguing
choice of words.) All we know, then, is that Snape was a Death Eater
who revealed the Prophecy to LV, that he later persuaded Dumbledore
that he had changed sides and was genuinely remorseful, and that he
spied for DD before becoming a Hogwarts teacher. 

It *seems*, judging from the absence of evidence from Karkaroff and
the ease with which DD persuaded Crouch to drop all charges against
the young Snape, and from Bellatrix's later assertions that Snape
"slithered out of action," that he didn't engage in the murder,
torture, or Imperioing that the other DEs were convicted of and sent
to Azkaban for. Nor did he plead, as Malfoy and others did, that he
had been Imperio'd. Instead he was cleared of all charges. I'm
guessing that his activities were more clandestine than those of the
murderers and torturers--it makes sense that LV would use young
Snape's talents as a potion maker, especially if he was seeking to
make his body as well as his soul immortal. He (LV) does seem to have
assigned duties to his DEs according to their interests and talents.

At any rate, we can't *assume* that Snape performed any kind of
Unforgiveable Curse before the AK (if it was an AK) on the tower. I
personally don't think that DD would have trusted him to be alone with
eleven-year-old children if he had ever killed or tortured anyone
himself. (That he *witnessed* such incidents, including probably the
murder of Regulus Black, we can be fairly certain. JKR intimates as
much in an interview answer to the question whether Snape can see
Thestrals: "As a Death Eater, he will have *seen*--" quoted from
memory, my italics, break-off in the original.)
  
> 
a_svirn:
> Now, where would be the fun of it? It would have tarnished "the 
> mysterious, ambiguous, etc. Potion Master" image forever.

Carol responds:
I agree in part--knowing what Snape did as a DE would destroy the
mystery and ambiguity that makes him such and intriguing and variously
interpreted character. But I don't think we can assume (as a_svirn
seems to--please correct me if I'm wrong) that just by virtue of being
a DE, he would have tortured and killed Muggles or "non-supporters"
(Karkaroff's word). Snape seems to be in all respects a special
case--distrusted by fanatically loyal DEs (Bellatrix and
Crouch!Moody), trusted by Dumbledore. But no one--not Karkaroff, not
the real Moody (who remains suspicious of him in the Pensieve scene
but levels no specific accusations), not Barty Sr. who acquits him on
DD's testimony--accuses him of specific crimes beyond revealing the
Prophecy to DD and, of course, joining the DEs in the first place for
we don't know what reasons.

Brewing potions to help LV in his quest for immortality or poisons to
be used in murders (as I think we can reasonably suspect him of
doing)is not exactly being innocent of any crimes, but at least there
is at present no evidence that I can find to connect him with
participating in the standard DE murder and torture before or after
Voldemort's fall. (He must, of course, have supplied LV with
information in his role as double agent, but if he's DD's Man the
specific information would be arranged in advance with DD.)

In part, of course, the absence of incriminating evidence is necessary
to maintain the ambiguity regarding his loyalties. But it may also
mean that he seldom or never participated in regular DE activities,
instead persistently "slithering out of action. Oh, on the Dark Lord's
orders, of course" (Bellatrix in "Spinner's End," quoted from memory)
and that he firmly and genuinely rejected all that LV stood for even
as he pretended to the Slytherins and their DE parents to maintain his
old loyalties. At this point, we just don't know.

Carol







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 10 23:02:54 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:02:54 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl07p2+rqrj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0jiu+gtmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142823

> Ceridwen: I'd love to think it was Snape. Could you imagine?
> Petunia meeting Snape again after many years: "You!"
> Snape: "You!"  Both go screaming into the night...

Jen: Hehe, you made my day with this thought, Ceridwen. The image is 
right up there with Darqali's wish to see the Dursleys hiding out at 
Grimmauld Place and Petunia meeting Sirius' mum....*snort*.

> Carol responds:
> Why not go with the obvious: *James* as the "awful boy"? We know
> that he was "an arrogant little berk" (Sirius Black's description
> of himself and his friend James in OoP, with the Pensieve scene as
> evidence for the accuracy of the description), and he may well have
> been somewhat contemptuous of poor Muggle Petunia--which would
> explain her hatred of him, including an unwillingness to speak his
> name. 

Jen: Well there *is* James, but unfortunately the straightforward 
reading is often not the most exciting one to write about on the 
list. :) You make a good canon case for James, if he's the one, we 
can't say JKR didn't put all her ducks in a row.

Carol:
> Yes, I know that Harry is often wrong, but why automatically assume
> that James can't possibly be the "awful boy," especially given
> Petunia's known dislike of him? 

Jen: That is a good point, but not the reason I'm temporarily 
rejecting James as the 'awful boy'. Reading that JKR quote 
hickengruendler posted reminded me why I suspected Snape in the 
first place: Since JKR won't tell us who it is, she's suggesting the 
answer will be a surprise to Harry. Who would be more surprising to 
Harry than Snape? But there are other good suspects, here's a list 
and why they might be interesting choices, what they could bring to 
the table (Snape's been sufficiently analyzed for this role, so I'm 
leaving him out):

1) Peter--For plot purposes, Peter going home with Lily could 
explain a few things. We still don't know the reason why Dumbledore 
suspected a spy among the Potter's friends.  If DD learned Voldemort 
had knowledge of the Dursleys, that would certainly narrow down the 
field of who was passing secrets about the Potters. In addition, it 
could explain why Dumbledore wrote to Petunia prior to asking for 
Harry to live with them, if he had reason to warn her of possible 
danger.

(Plus, I can't get the creepy symbolism out of my mind of Peter  
sitting between James and Lily in the Order photo. So suggestive of 
the type of person he was, to insinuate himself into their lives to 
such a degree they never suspected his duplicity).

2) Sirius (colebiancardi's suggestion)--Hmm, never considered 
Sirius. He probably *would* qualify as completely 'awful' to 
Petunia! Now the question is would he try to charm her or tease her 
for being so priggish? The downside of Sirius is he was so closely 
tied with James, it's hard to picture him going home with Lily 
without James attached at the hip. And if James was there, we have 
no need for mystery, right?!?

3) Remus--He seems the most likely Marauder to have been friends 
with Lily, especially if they were Gryffindor prefects together. 
Plus he was naturally more serious than the others and it's in-
character for him to discuss the intricacies of Azkaban and 
dementors (already getting started on his knowledge of dark 
creatures). A reason for the plot is harder to come by, why would 
Harry be surprised to find out Petunia knew Lupin? If it's Lupin, 
more likely the surprise will come about in the opposite direction, 
Harry's shock that Petunia actually had contact with people other 
than Lily and James. 

Carol:
> Obviously Petunia knows more about the magical world than she lets
> on and she has been suppressing both her feelings and her
> knowledge all this time (we'll undoubtedly hear more from her in
> Book 7--I'm hoping that she'll show Harry the letter tha DD left
> on the doorstep) but I see no reason to suspect that her
> resentment of Lily and her dislike of "that Potter" are anything 
> other than real--in which case, "that awful boy" is at least as
> likely to be James as to be one of his friends--or Severus Snape,
> who probably had no desire to step into a Muggle house--and would
> have been about as welcome there as Kreacher in the Dursleys'
> sitting room.

Jen: I'm with you on the letter, I have quite a few hopes pinned on 
that letter! As for Snape, the risk seemed too high for him to 
openly befriend a Muggle-born, no matter what his own philosophies. 
By that time Voldemort was gaining power, and Snape's particular 
connections at Hogwarts make it unlikely he was in an open 
friendship with Lily. A clandestine one perhaps. Ewww. 


> Carol, who thinks that Petunia, despite some knowledge of the WW
> and Voldemort and what happened to Harry's parents, is just a
> jealous and resentful Muggle who fears magic in general
> and "abnormality" in particular.

Jen: Maybe it was Remus and Petunia knew about his 'abnormality' or 
simply thought something was wrong with him given his pale skin, 
shabby robes, etc.?

Jen, hoping hickengruendler will add to the list with his suggestion 
of Regulus, as he would be a never-before-analyzed possbility.






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 10 23:52:16 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:52:16 -0000
Subject: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory
Message-ID: <dl0mfg+1u3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142824

We readers, unlike JKR, do not have the knowledge of how exactly the 
Potter series will pan out in book 7 and what becomes of the 
characters thereafter (thinking of the alleged epilogue).

Bearing this in mind I propose that Snape's worst memory is other 
than has so far been speculated on. From the viewpoint of looking 
back over the years in which the Harry Potter story takes place, and 
with a suspicion on my part that the author writes from the 
perspective of that viewpoint, I contend that Snape discontinuing 
Harry's Occlumency lessons is in fact Snape's worst memory.

The reason for this, if correct, would then tie in to the ultimate 
fate of Harry at the climax of book 7. If someone close to Snape 
dies because of knowledge obtained by LV from Harry using 
Legilimency then Snape would obviuosly be reminded that he did not 
conclude his lessons to Harry. Had he done so then this potential 
loss may have been averted, thus making what I contend to be Snape's 
worst memory as stated.

Who precisely this person close to Snape might be is difficult to 
gauge, but I will expand just a little further.

Snape is said to have loved someone, we are unaware so far as to who 
that may be, however there are some suspects, which range from the 
sublime to the ridiculous.

The first suspect is Petunia Dursley nee Evans. Could Snape have had 
any contact with her through a visit to Diagon Alley or some other 
means? It is quite possible. Whether he loved her is questionable, 
but it would account in some way for Petunia's bitterness towards 
the WW in that she resented the fact that she was completely cut off 
from the WW mostly through her associateion with Vernon rather than 
through her own choice. As stated elsewhere Petunia is really the 
only candidate for being the person who will perform magic in 
desperate circumstances later in life when LV or some DEs turn up at 
4 Privet Drive in book 7 after Harry's seventeenth birthday.

The second suspect is the other Evans girl, Lily Potter. Much 
discussion has been ongoing regarding Snape's potential infatuation 
with Lily. She is likely to have been his guide in Potions. She was 
offered the opportunity of saving herself, which is unlikely to have 
been at LV's instigation alone (although I believe he would have 
killed Lily even if she had stepped aside, but that's another post), 
thus casting some suspicion to Snape as the originator of the plan 
to kill the other Potters while sparing Lily for his own nefarious 
purpose. She is, however, dead and unless Snape is more severely 
emotionally disabled than he is depicted then he should have dealt 
with her death after a lapse of more than fifteen years to date in 
canon.

Other suspects are any younger female Professor at Hogwarts, these 
would include possibly Proffessors Vector and Sinistra and I suppose 
you could not exclude Trelawney. There is no real support for any of 
these though and I pass on.

Most likely it is someone we have not yet properly met, someone who 
has been mentioned in passing or overlooked.

To conclude then and clarify, if not already clear enough, Snape's 
worst memory is his failure to conclude Occlumency lessons with 
Harry.

Anyone care to discuss / expand?

Goddlefrood







From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Fri Nov 11 00:16:17 2005
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:16:17 -0800
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Harry stating the Order's HQ?
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAASEV8oYceA0KyD9tz2ccl+gEAAAAA@citynet.net>
References:  <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAASEV8oYceA0KyD9tz2ccl+gEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <694639691.20051110161617@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142826

I have a HBP Chapter 3 Question: Is the following a Flint? --

  "Our problem," he continued to Harry ... , "is that Sirius also
   left you number twelve, Grimmauld Place."

  "He's been left a house?" said Uncle Vernon greedily...

  "You can keep using it as headquarters," said Harry. "I don't care.
   You can have it, I don't really want it." Harry never wanted to set
   foot in number twelve, Grimmauld Place again if he could help it...

   
Harry is not Secret-Keeper for the Order, so how can he state in
front of the Dursleys that 12 Grimmauld Place is headquarters for
the OotP?  I must admit that I'm still foggy on how the Fidelius Charm
works anyway...

-- 
Dave




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 00:46:11 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:46:11 -0000
Subject: Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody els
In-Reply-To: <dl0fkc+qdn9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0pkj+bs40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142827

Reposted.  I misunderstood what Carol said concerning the time Snape 
joined Voldemort. Mea culpa and my apologies. 

> Carol:
> I assume that you're referring to Snape killing Dumbledore on the
> tower, which is not a straightforward instance of Snape "in
action" as
> a Death eater.<snip>

a_svirn:
Actually his actions on the Tower are as straightforward as it
possibly gets. He came in, assessed the situation, assumed the
control of the DE's operation and killed a man. A very good,
innocent and unarmed man. If that's not straightforward, I really
don't know what is.

> Carol:
>(Clearly, he was *not* at Godric's
> Hollow; he was already at Hogwarts as of the beginning of the
term.)

a_svirn:
So what if it was. When he came to Voldemort "on Dumbledore's
orders" it was also the term-time. I am not saying that he
necessarily *was* at Godric's Hollow, just that he could have been
for all we know.

> Carol:
> It *seems*, judging from the absence of evidence from Karkaroff and
> the ease with which DD persuaded Crouch to drop all charges against
> the young Snape, and from Bellatrix's later assertions that Snape
> "slithered out of action," that he didn't engage in the murder,
> torture, or Imperioing that the other DEs were convicted of and
sent
> to Azkaban for. Nor did he plead, as Malfoy and others did, that he
> had been Imperio'd.

a_svirn:
We don't know how easy it was for Dumbledore actually. He said
only "we've been though this". And why on earth would Snape plead
Imperio-defence if he was already proclaimed a hero?

> Carol:
>He (LV) does seem to have
> assigned duties to his DEs according to their interests and
talents.

a_svirn:
And what do we know about the DE respective talents? Except that
Mulciber was a dab hand at the Imperious?

> Carol:
>JKR intimates as
> much in an interview answer to the question whether Snape can see
> Thestrals: "As a Death Eater, he will have *seen*--" quoted from
> memory, my italics, break-off in the original.)

a_svirn:
Well, we can't expect Rowling to show her hand now, can we?
Personally I can't imagine how one can be a part of a group without
participating in the said group's activities.

> Carol:
>But I don't think we can assume (as a_svirn
> seems to--please correct me if I'm wrong) that just by virtue of
being
> a DE, he would have tortured and killed Muggles or "non-supporters"
> (Karkaroff's word). Snape seems to be in all respects a special
> case--distrusted by fanatically loyal DEs (Bellatrix and
> Crouch!Moody), trusted by Dumbledore.

a_svirn:
I think it's a fairly logical assumption to make at any rate. Take
your own argument upthread: practically every other DE did kill and
torture. That being the case, why Snape should be special? I don't
think Voldemort issued a dispensation for him. Why would he? I
concede that he could have been less enthusiastic then some. But
couldn't have survived without getting his hands dirty. And
Bellatrix and Crouch seemed to despise ALL of the DE who slithered
their way out Azkaban, not just Snape.













From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 11 00:45:35 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:45:35 -0000
Subject: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory
In-Reply-To: <dl0mfg+1u3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0pjf+4kvg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142828

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at y...> wrote:
> 
> Snape is said to have loved someone, we are unaware so far as to who 
> that may be, however there are some suspects, which range from the 
> sublime to the ridiculous.
> 
colebiancardi: Actually, Rowling stated that Snape had been loved by
someone, not that he loved someone.  When asked if Snape ever loved
someone, she remarked who would want to be loved by Snape?  So, we
don't know if Snape ever loved anyone, only that Snape had been loved
by someone else - his mother, Dumbledore(father figure)?  

not to nitpick, but there you have it - I guess I am nitpicking :-) 

  
> To conclude then and clarify, if not already clear enough, Snape's 
> worst memory is his failure to conclude Occlumency lessons with 
> Harry.

colebiancardi: I do like your theory.  I have a theory on why Snape
put that particular memory in the pensive.  Perhaps, and I know I am
streching here, Snape didn't want Harry to see it because of Snape's
humiliation (being turned upside down, undies showing, all alone)? 
Even though it was at the hands of Harry's father, which we know Snape
doesn't mind telling Harry what an arrogant person James was and
making Harry copy the detention files which outline James & Sirius's
offenses, the humiliation of being bullied would have showed Harry a
*weaker side* of Snape. I don't think it is his worst memory, but one
that he certainly doesn't want Harry to see, as it changes the dynamic
of teacher-student relationship.  
 

colebiancardi






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 01:18:01 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:18:01 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Harry stating the Order's HQ?
In-Reply-To: <694639691.20051110161617@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <dl0rg9+mmfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142829

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...>
wrote:
>
> I have a HBP Chapter 3 Question: Is the following a Flint? --
> 
> "Our problem," he [Dumbledore] continued to Harry ... , "is that
> Sirius also left you ***number twelve, Grimmauld Place.***"
> 
> "He's been left a house?" said Uncle Vernon greedily...
> 
> "You can keep using it as headquarters," said Harry. "I don't
>  care.
> You can have it, I don't really want it." Harry never wanted 
> to set foot in number twelve, Grimmauld Place again if he could 
> help it...


> Dave: 
>    
> Harry is not Secret-Keeper for the Order, so how can he state 
> in front of the Dursleys that 12 Grimmauld Place is headquarters
> for the OotP?  I must admit that I'm still foggy on how the 
> Fidelius Charm works anyway...
> 
> -- 
> Dave
>


bboyminn:

No Harry isn't the Secret Keeper, Dumbledore is, and it is Dumbledore
that first mentions 12 Grimmauld Place in front of the Dursleys. One
could speculate that in doing so, Dumbledore 'let the cat out of the
bag', and that opened the door for Harry to be able to mention that is
is also headuqarters.

That's a bit of a thin explanation, but I think a workable one.
Technically, it is probably a FLINT, but there are ways to work around
that. Just follow this rule: When in doubt; make it up. 

That's what I do.

Steve/bboyminn






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov 11 01:43:21 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:43:21 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Harry stating the Order's HQ?
In-Reply-To: <694639691.20051110161617@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <dl0svp+n6ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142830

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...> wrote:
>
> I have a HBP Chapter 3 Question: Is the following a Flint? --
> 
>   "Our problem," he continued to Harry ... , "is that Sirius also
>    left you number twelve, Grimmauld Place."
> 
>   "He's been left a house?" said Uncle Vernon greedily...
> 
>   "You can keep using it as headquarters," said Harry. "I don't care.
>    You can have it, I don't really want it." Harry never wanted to set
>    foot in number twelve, Grimmauld Place again if he could help it...
> 
>    
> Harry is not Secret-Keeper for the Order, so how can he state in
> front of the Dursleys that 12 Grimmauld Place is headquarters for
> the OotP?  I must admit that I'm still foggy on how the Fidelius Charm
> works anyway...

Pippin:
Harry never mentions the Order, and I suspect that if he did, the 
Dursleys would not have been able to process the information, just as 
Voldemort could have had his nose pressed to the window in Godric's 
Hollow and not seen the Potters inside.

Pippin







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 01:59:07 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:59:07 -0000
Subject: Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory)
In-Reply-To: <dl0mfg+1u3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0ttb+unke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142831

Goddlefrood wrote:
<snip theory because I agree with colebiancardi that Snape removed the
memory to avoid humiliation, and I think what we'll see in Book 7 has
to do with redemption, not his love life> 

> As stated elsewhere Petunia is really the only candidate for being
the person who will perform magic in desperate circumstances later in
life when LV or some DEs turn up at 4 Privet Drive in book 7 after
Harry's seventeenth birthday. <snip>

Carol responds:
Actually, Petunia may be the most popular candidate, Muggle though
we've repeatedly been told she is, but she's not the "only" candidate.
the exact quote from the interview is "there is a character who does
manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life . . . ."

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/0399-barnesandnoble.html

Petunia is probably close to Lily's age, which would be 39 if she had
lived, in her late thirties or more likely early forties. (I get the
feeling that she's older than Lily and consequently her jealousy is
more intense--it's one thing to be outdone by an older sister, but a
younger one! How humiliating.) Either way, she's middle-aged, not old.
Forty or forty-five is not "quite late in life," even for a Muggle.
Seventy or eighty or ninety, yes.

Also, she's not the only nonmagical person (setting aside Vernon and
Dudley, both of whom can be ruled out) likely to be facing "desperate
circumstances" on Privet Drive as July 30 turns to July 31 in Book 7.
Mrs. Figg, the Order member who helped Harry after the Dementor
attack, is just as likely to show up this time as before (warned by
her part-Kneazle cats that DEs have appeared at 4 Privet Drive, or
perhaps anticipating an attack when the protective magic ends).

Unlike Petunia, Mrs. Figg knows what a spell is and how to cast one;
she's just never succeeded in doing it. Nevertheless, there is some
trace of magic in her--she can talk to cats, and she's familiar with
the WW despite being only a Squib. If a DE were to knock Harry's wand
from his hand, she would at least know which end to point and what
words to say. "Stupefy!" would do. "Expecto Patronum" might be better
if she could somehow summon the Order by conjuring her Patronus.

At any rate, Mrs. Figg is considerably older than Petunia, easily
qualifying as "quite late in life," and she's at least as likely as
Petunia to be able to perform magic. The best Petunia could do would
be to perform accidental magic along the lines of blowing up Aunt
Marge or melting the glass in the snake exhibit. Mrs. Figg, OTOH,
could perform a real spell if she turns out to be the character
referred to.

We've been told in every book that Petunia is a Muggle. A Muggle, as
we all know, is a nonmagical person. Her parents were also Muggles
(Lily is a Muggleborn); there is no known history of magic in the
Evans blood (or in the maternal line, either). But Mrs. Figg, as a
Squib, must have had at least one magical parent and possibly two.
She's not a Muggle but, in essence, a failed witch. (I'm pretty sure
that JKR describes our other known Squib, Filch, as "a failed wizard"
in CoS or PoA.) Of the two, Petunia or Mrs. Figg, Mrs. Figg seems the
likelier to perform magic. It's in her blood and her heritage; it's
just never been activated by sufficiently desperate circumstances.

(Filch, the other Squib, who also fits the "quite late in life"
criterion, is unlikely to be present at Privet Drive at any point,
though it's possible he could perform magic at the hypothetical battle
of Hogwarts, but that seems less likely now that Harry probably won't
be attending school in Book 7. I won't rule him out completely, but I
think our brave and feisty Order member is a better candidate, tartan
carpet slippers and all.)

Petunia has a role to play in the books regardless of whether she
performs magic "[somewhat] late in life" or not. But why introduce
Figgy and make a Squib a member of the Order of the Phoenix if not to
have her play a heroic role in Book 7? Of course, she could hit a
Death Eater with a sackful of catfood cans, but I doubt that would be
very effective.

Carol, casting her vote for Mrs. Figg as the unlikely heroine of the
Battle of Privet Drive






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 02:03:08 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:03:08 -0000
Subject: Humor and Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dl026q+5nin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0u4t+103qf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142832

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
> Debbie wrote:
> 
> > For those of us who read Dumbledore's actions as "bad manners"
> > the humor in the scene was harder to appreciate, although I 
> > recognized that the intent was not to portray Dumbledore as 
> > an ill-mannered person.
> 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Although I do agree with most of what you've said, I don't think
> you areright in this instance. I think that it's impossible to 
> appreciate humour of the episode without appreciating Dumbledore's
> rudeness. That's what makes it an example of the "comeuppance 
> humour" as you termed it ? the disparity between what he does 
> and what he says. ... I do believe, however, that he went too
> far with it.
> 
> Debbie:
> > On the other hand, I didn't have any problem with Dumbledore
> chastising the  Dursleys for their appalling behavior to Harry 
> all these years.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Neither do I. Except that his timing leaves a great deal to be
> desired. It hardly matters for Harry anymore now, does it? But 
> I do have problems with the most powerful wizard of all bullying
> and humiliating powerless muggles.
>

bboyminn:

Well, Debbie has made several very nice points; re-enforced by
A_Svirn. Very true we don't all appreciate the same humor. And without
a doubt, Dumbledore was indeed using his own brand of
'passive-aggressive' manners to have some fun with the Dursleys, but
let's not lose perspective here.

First, as I said before, I think it was necessary for Dumbledore to
make his own /assumptions of courtesy/ because Vernon was too
Dumbfounded to react. On seeing Dumbledore suddenly on his doorstep,
Vernon just went blank. So, either they stood and stared at each
other, or Dumbledore took the initiative to move things forward. 

Second, apparently I have a completely warped view of what /bullying/
and /humiliating/ is. In his passive-aggressive way Dumbledore always
maintains a polite and courteous demeanor. While there may have been
an element of sarcasm involved, that hardly constitutes /bulling/ or
/humiliating/ by any definition, technical or working, that I am
familiar with.

Let's take a minimalist look at Dumbledore's horrible crimes.

1.) He took the initiative in courtesy when it became clear that
Vernon was unable to, and invited himself in. Note I said unable, not
unwilling. I still say that Vernon would have treated Dumbledore with
a polite indifference if Harry had given him some warning.

2.) Seeing as how Vernon was once again unable to extent the most
basic courtesy. Dumbledore offerred them a seat and a drink. What a
horrible thing to do; a seat and a drink, he should be lashed (he said
very sarcastically).

3.) He politely told the Dursleys that did a terrible job of raising
Harry. Extending the most basic courtesy and consideration to Harry
would not have cost the Dursely's a thing, and would have made Harry's
life more pleasant; note: /more/ pleasant, but not necessarily pleasant.

Now, let's talk about Come-uppance Humor. Dumbledore bluntly but
politely told the Dursleys that they shirked their responsiblity to
give Harry the most basic compassionate upbringing.

OH MY GOD! What vitriol, what horrible horrible vitriol. He politely
told off people who dearly needed telling off; what a monster! (Again,
sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.)

If Dumbledore wanted to give them their TRUE come-uppance, he would
have turned them into warty toad. That would have been Come-Uppance
Humor. As it is, he simply and politely told them off, a telling off
they very much deserved and more.

I hardly see any undo bullying or unwarranted humiliation here.
Really, I don't. He told them off politely, and they more than
deserved it.

Bad manners? Well it usually is a bit rude to go around telling people
off, but sometimes it's necessary. 

Yes, I agree Dumbledore engaged in a bit of passive-aggressive
courtesy. But the Dursley engaged in NO COURTESY what so ever.

I don't deny that there was an element of sarcasm in Dumbledore's
actions, but, really, let's keep a perspective here. What the Dursleys
did to Harry was bullying and humiliating, what Dumbledore did to the
Dursley was merely a bit annoying.

We all see it differently, and we have to accept that, but I seriously
doubt that I will ever see Dumbledore /bullying/ and /humiliating/
anyone in that chapter.

Steve/bboyminn






From kjones at telus.net  Fri Nov 11 02:05:01 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:05:01 -0800
Subject: RE Snape Video " I am a Rock"
Message-ID: <4373FC4D.8050107@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142833

KJ writes:

    For those who are interested, or haven't seen it, there is still a 
Snape music video available for download at 
www.angelfire.com/wizard2/snaperock. This is the best one I have seen so 
far, and is very well done. The creator of this video also seems to have 
some questions about who was at GH. Enjoy.
KJ




From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 02:53:31 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:53:31 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
Message-ID: <dl113b+foqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142834

I'm wondering about the statement Voldemort made to Harry about, "Your 
mother needn't have died".  That seems out-of-character for Voldemort -
 seeing as one of his big things is pure bloodedness (even though he 
is not).  He has obviously killed a large number of people, why on 
earth would he decide to kill James, little Harry, and spare muggle-
born Lily?  Some time ago I read various theories about this, but I 
can't imagine any reason why Voldemort would intentionally consider 
not killing Lily.  Any ideas?

Ginny343






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 02:56:12 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:56:12 -0000
Subject: Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory)
In-Reply-To: <dl0ttb+unke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl118c+2ad9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142835

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> Either way, she's middle-aged, not old. (Petunia)

Goddlefrood:

Older than me, but not by much and older than JKR, again not by 
much. The semantics of the word later bear consideration.

It is widely accepted that magic generally speaking manifests itself 
at a relatively young age (that is pre attending Hogwarts). I point 
out the example of Neville, who was thought to be a squib and whose 
family apparently considered not sending him to Howarts at some 
point before he displayed magical ability by bouncing.

By later in life it is logical to conclude that JKR means someone 
over the age of majority certainly and probably quite a way over, 
someone who was around forty say?

Mrs. Figg as a squib may know about magic but there has been no 
indication whatever that she is capable of any kind of magic. On 
this basis I have to say that my, and others, view that Aunt Petunia 
is the prime candidate is a sound one.

Further to this I refer you to the Edinburgh Book Festival Interview 
of 15th August 2004, wherein we find this exchange:

"Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? 

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. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly 
indiscreet."

This suggests strongly, when read in conjunction with the quotation 
cited by Carol, that Petunia will be the one performing magic 
comparatively late in life.

Goddlefrood






From rklarreich at aol.com  Fri Nov 11 00:54:07 2005
From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:54:07 -0000
Subject: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory
In-Reply-To: <dl0mfg+1u3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0q3f+59q0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142836

I'm not replying to Goddlefrood's main point (that "Snape's worst 
memory" refers to the contents of the chapter of that name rather 
than to the contents of the Pensieve), but to some of the other 
issues he mentions in the same post.

Goddlefrood wrote:
>
> Snape is said to have loved someone, we are unaware so far as to 
who 
> that may be, however there are some suspects, which range from the 
> sublime to the ridiculous.

Roberta:
Actually, my recollection is that JKR said in an interview that Snape 
*has been* loved *by* someone, which is not quite the same thing.  Of 
course, she may have said elsewhere that Snape has loved someone, but 
I don't recall seeing it.


Goddlefrood:
> The second suspect is the other Evans girl, Lily Potter. Much 
> discussion has been ongoing regarding Snape's potential infatuation 
> with Lily. She is likely to have been his guide in Potions.


Roberta:
I've never liked the Snape-loved-Lily theory because it seems such a 
tired device.  But here I want to address the comment that Lily 
is "likely" to have been his guide in Potions.  This is a leap from 
the known facts, which are:

1.  Snape was the owner of a potions textbook with improvements in 
the margins.

2.  Lily was very good at Potions.

3.  Lily and Snape were in the same year and therefore presumably in 
the same NEWTs Potions class.

We do not have any evidence at this point that they were friends or 
associates in any way, so we can't make the inference that she 
was "likely" to have been his guide in Potions.  We can speculate on 
it as a possibility, of course, but that's not the same thing.  And 
we should bear in mind that Snape is still at the top of his field, 
despite the fact that Lily has been dead for ten years as of the 
beginning of the series, which suggests that Snape is capable of 
doing just fine without her help.

(And the fact that Slughorn continually mentions Lily's Potions 
prowess to Harry while being silent on the subject of Snape's 
abilities proves nothing either way.  Since he's trying to "collect" 
Harry, he'd naturally want to keep praising Harry's mother, and Snape 
would be completely irrelevant to this.)


Godlefrood:
> She was 
> offered the opportunity of saving herself, which is unlikely to 
have 
> been at LV's instigation alone (although I believe he would have 
> killed Lily even if she had stepped aside, but that's another post),


Roberta:
JKR has confirmed (in the Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview) that 
Voldemort would have spared her.  Although I suspected as much even 
before she confirmed it--it makes more sense that way.  Why would 
Voldemort waste time telling her to step aside if he was going to 
kill her anyway?  Voldemort was there to eliminate the One With the 
Power to Vanquish him.  This was work, not Bad Boys' Night Out.  No 
time to waste toying with the people who got in the way--just kill 
them and get on with the serious business of the night, killing 
Harry.  No, if Voldemort told her to step aside, it was because he 
had a reason for sparing her.

Which brings me to the speculation that his reason for sparing her 
has to do with Snape (half-raised by Goddlefrood in this post, more 
prominently featured by others).  This doesn't make a lot of sense 
for me because he DID kill her in the end.  If she wasn't important 
to him personally, but he was saving her for someone else, why not 
just Stun her to get her out of the way?  I find it more likely that 
he wanted her for his own purposes, then realized from her behavior 
that it was never going to work out and killed her.  This would work 
if, as some have suggested, he wanted to tap into her Potions ability 
(or Charms know-how?).  I'm more intrigued, though, by the theories 
put forth that he may have wanted to make her a Horcrux but realized 
he couldn't control her.  (Apologies to the originator of this theory 
for forgetting your name!)


Godlefrood:
> Other suspects are any younger female Professor at Hogwarts, these 
> would include possibly Proffessors Vector and Sinistra and I 
suppose 
> you could not exclude Trelawney.


Roberta:
I suspect that if Vector or Sinistra were going to play a part in the 
story, it would have happened by now.  As for Trelawney and Snape, 
the mind boggles.  Although there is a certain wacky charm to the 
idea of secret trysts in secluded corners of North Tower.  The 
Prophecy could have brought them together.  Voldemort orders Snape to 
keep an eye on the seer in case she delivers another prophecy, and 
one thing leads to another...Except Snape would have to be brain-
dead, so there goes that idea.

Roberta








From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 10 23:00:39 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:00:39 -0500
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
References: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4373D117.9090401@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142837

ibchawz wrote:
> I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.  
> Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious, 
> amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc.  If 
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you 
> read the books?

Bart:

I am going to assume by your post that you're an American. This is 
because, in the last 60 years or so, American schools have taught a very 
skewed idea of what a hero is, or at least have gone off the deep end 
from the more classical definition. In America, a hero is supposed to be 
someone without any flaws who does great things. The result of this is 
that there are no heroes, as everybody has SOME flaws. It has resulted 
in a mad search for flaws in people we think of as heroes, as if the 
flaws somehow negate what they do.

Yet, classically, heroes can be highly flawed. It is that they do great 
things IN SPITE of those flaws that make them heroes. And the Harry 
Potter novels is about a hero in progress. It shows how he goes through 
the trials and tribulations, how he makes mistakes and learns from them, 
but moves towards great things.

It's been said that the novels have a great deal of breadth, but not a 
lot of depth. They are in an incredibly detailed world, but most of the 
characters lack complexity; they have quirks which stand in for 
personality. But still, reading the novels is very much like playing a 
game; each novel has a mystery, which is solved by the time you have 
finished the novel. But there are a number of series-wide mysteries, 
and, as we read the books, we learn the rules, and can play the game.

And the game is fun.

	Bart






From foodiedb at optonline.net  Fri Nov 11 03:43:01 2005
From: foodiedb at optonline.net (foodiedb)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:43:01 -0000
Subject: Harry Helping Ron Financially?
Message-ID: <dl1405+i3fj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142838

Hi all, 
I am rather new at this, so I am sorry if this has already been 
covered, but I was wondering why Harry doesn't offer to financially 
help Ron and family?  For example, why doesn't he offer to buy Ron a 
new wand in Chamber, or why doesn't he offer to buy them a new house, 
etc.., etc.
Thanks.

Foodiedb








From va32h at comcast.net  Fri Nov 11 04:55:03 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:55:03 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl09hi+ndkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl1877+3g5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142839

 Carol writes:
> > Why not go with the obvious: *James* as the "awful boy"? 


When I first read the passage, I assumed James was indeed the "awful 
boy" and nothing I've read in canon since has made me reconsider this. 

I know that the "party line" is that JKR is always throwing in red 
herrings and plot twists that could never have been expected and 
nothing is ever supposed to be what it seems...but my reading of the 
books shows me that JKR goes with the "obvious explanation" quite 
often as well. 

I also feel that with all the other ideas and themes going on in OotP, 
it's hard for me to believe that JKR intended her readers to agonize 
and speculate over this particular detail. The important clue in 
Petunia's outburst was, IMO, supposed to be that she knew more about 
the wizarding world than she had previously let on, not that she had 
some secret connection to Snape, Lupin, or whomever else the "awful 
boy" is presumed to be.  I just don't see Petunia as such a major 
player in the story (as compared to other characters) that she would 
warrant a "secret past" subplot. Shoe-horning in a backstory about 
Petunia knowing (or having been secretly in love with) Snape or Lupin 
would be just bizarre to me, as well as deeply distracting to the 
Horcrux hunt. 

va32h
  











From va32h at comcast.net  Fri Nov 11 04:38:41 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:38:41 -0000
Subject: Harry Helping Ron Financially?
In-Reply-To: <dl1405+i3fj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl178h+q26l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142840

Foodiedb:

> Hi all, 
> I am rather new at this, so I am sorry if this has already been 
> covered, but I was wondering why Harry doesn't offer to financially 
> help Ron and family?  For example, why doesn't he offer to buy Ron a 
> new wand in Chamber, or why doesn't he offer to buy them a new 
> house, etc.., etc.



I think that Ron and his family would be rather embarrassed by such a 
gesture - and Harry would not want to do that to his best friend and 
the family he loves so much. 


va32h









From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 07:05:51 2005
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:05:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory)
In-Reply-To: <dl118c+2ad9@eGroups.com>
References: <dl0ttb+unke@eGroups.com> <dl118c+2ad9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40511102305s20fafee3s81178f71c05ea7a1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142841

On 11/10/05, Goddlefrood <gav_fiji at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Goddlefrood:
>
> <snip>
>
> "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?
>
> 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. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly
> indiscreet."
>
> This suggests strongly, when read in conjunction with the quotation
> cited by Carol, that Petunia will be the one performing magic
> comparatively late in life.

 Kemper now:
I agree that Aunt Petunia is not the only candidate and that the semantics
'late' as in 'late in life' suggest late in age of displayed magic rather
than the twilight of someone's life.
...
To add to the Aunt Petunia as the one to display magic, I want to look at it
thematically. To have Mrs. Figg be the 'late' witch takes away from the
power we see in her within a society that essentially thinks of her as 'less
than': that she is not as valued because she is not magical. She stands up
for herself against a league of powerful witches and wizards: she is strong
without magic. It would be like Rosa Parks (American black woman who is an
icon of the civil rights movement) turning white.
...
However, having Aunt Petunia be the 'late' witch... ahh... literary irony...
yum! Plus, for those readers among us who psychotically need to see
righteous/vindictive retribution reigned over their most hated characters
(Snape?), they get to see the Dursley's in emotional turmoil over one them
possessing the hated and the feared Magic.
...
Kemper, who has mentioned this in the past but it's been a year or so...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 05:12:42 2005
From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:12:42 -0000
Subject: Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory)
In-Reply-To: <dl118c+2ad9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl198a+ao8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142842

Goddlefrood wrote:

Further to this I refer you to the Edinburgh Book Festival Interview
of 15th August 2004, wherein we find this exchange:

"Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?

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. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly
indiscreet."

This suggests strongly, when read in conjunction with the quotation
cited by Carol, that Petunia will be the one performing magic
comparatively late in life.

Hpfan_mom:

Now I'm depressed - late thirties is middle-aged!

More to the point, we have to ask why squib is a very good guess.  
Squibs are involuntarily non-magical.  Could Petunia be 
*voluntarily* non-magical?

"She is a Muggle, but - [Laughter]."  What's the rest of that 
sentence?  Here's a guess - "She is a Muggle, but only by choice."  
If anyone has the willpower to squelch down magical talent until it 
just about disappears, to clean it out of her life, so to speak, 
it's Petunia.

"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," said 
Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him!  Wizard indeed!"  
SS/PS, p. 53.  Maybe the Dursleys thought they could stamp the magic 
out of Harry since Petunia had already successfully done it to 
herself so she wouldn't be "a freak" like Lily.  (Also p. 53.)

It would also be a nice parallel if the magic Petunia performs is in 
the Battle of Privet Drive to protect her son.

Hpfan_mom










From va32h at comcast.net  Fri Nov 11 05:19:41 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:19:41 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl113b+foqu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl19ld+sbin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142843

"ginny343" <ginny343 at y...> wrote:
>
> I'm wondering about the statement Voldemort made to Harry 
about, "Your 
> mother needn't have died".  That seems out-of-character for 
Voldemort -
>  seeing as one of his big things is pure bloodedness (even though he 
> is not).  He has obviously killed a large number of people, why on 
> earth would he decide to kill James, little Harry, and spare muggle-
> born Lily?  Some time ago I read various theories about this, but I 
> can't imagine any reason why Voldemort would intentionally consider 
> not killing Lily.  Any ideas?


Well, I think Voldemort is a pragmatic killer, not a wanton one. With 
the exception of his father and grandparents - which were indeed 
sadistic, vengeance murders, Voldemort seems to have limited his 
personal murders to those whom he really does need to kill in order to 
further his plans. Bertha Jorkins, Cedric, Frank Bryce, Hepzibah 
Smith. 

Certainly, Voldemort is cold and heartless when he performs these 
murders - but that is not quite the same as someone like Bellatrix, or 
Fenrir, who clearly take pleasure in torturing and killing others. 

Voldemort wanted to kill Harry - he had to kill James because James 
got in his way. If Lily got out of the way, she'd be spared. (I also 
wondered, briefly, if Voldemort just wanted to make sure he killed one 
of Harry's parents, so they couldn't have another baby "born as the 
7th month dies, to parents who have thrice defied him".)

Notice that once Lily is in fact, in the way, Voldemort dispatches her 
at once. 

va32h









From va32h at comcast.net  Fri Nov 11 05:32:08 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:32:08 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dl08vu+oot7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl1aco+qtk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142844

colebiancardi writes:

> why are they so woefully out 
> of touch with the concept of iPods or its forefather, the Walkman?  
> Or that they still use candles and torches instead of electricity?

The stories are set in the 90's - so I think that is pre-ipod era. 

As for other electrical devices, Hermione tells us in GoF that magic 
renders electricity inoperable - "there's too much magic in the air" 
at Hogwarts for Rita Skeeter to use a listening device (or for 
students to use computers, TVs, or all those other inventions Muggles 
have come up with to substitute for magic).

va32h








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Fri Nov 11 06:13:55 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:13:55 -0000
Subject: Standards of writing WAS:Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dku81b+alb0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl1cr3+1m9v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142845

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> You are confusing the reader's personal taste with the author's
> craftsmanship or lack thereof. I work in the field of book publishing.
> I have a PhD in English. I know good writing when I see it and can
> produce it myself when called upon to do so. (If I didn't, I'd be
> fired.) And it has nothing to do with how I view the characters or
> what I think should happen to them. "Well-written" (determinable by
> specific criteria) is not the same as "satisfying" (a wholly
> subjective judgment).
> 


Absolutely and completely incorrect.  There is NO objective standard of 
good writing.  There are simply standards which have been politically 
agreed upon for the sake of the convenience of certain communities, and 
even those shift constantly.  Writing is by its very nature completely 
subjective, and therefore all judgments thereof are completely 
subjective.

Will Snape be punished?  As I say, if he is not then JKR is an 
extremely poor writer and has no idea how to craft a good story.  Is 
that a subjective statement?  Absolutely.

Are the characters in the Potter saga given layers of depth?  You, I 
think (and I may be wrong) would say yes.  Is that good writing?  You, 
I think, would say yes.  Is that a subjective statement?  Absolutely.

How many people agree with my position?  I don't know and I don't care, 
but the question is a matter of politics, not of objective standards 
that don't exist.  How many agree with you?  A huge number, I am 
certain.  But once again, that is a matter of politics, NOT of 
objective standards that do not exist.

I will even make many more subjective statements.  OOTP was a horridly 
written book that constitutes, in the main, one set of mistakes after 
another.  JKR's decision to kill Sirius was an extraordinarily bad one 
and bespeaks lack of creativity and enslavement to tired and boring 
traditions.  The first four books, on the other hand, were generally 
very well-written and bespoke a promise that has been sorely betrayed 
by the horrible and uncreative writing of the last two books.

Now, can I prove any of that?  Absolutely not.  Do I think it bespeaks 
a shift on JKR's part to bad writing that dips into the realm of 
extremely bad writing.  Most certainly.  Is good writing the same as 
satisfying writing?  Yes, it absolutely is.  Is what makes for good 
writing an absolute and inalterable subjective judgment?  You bet your 
bottom dollar it is.

In time the forces of politics will determine a consensus on JKR and 
her writing, just as they do all authors.  And over time that consensus 
will shift, just as it does with all authors.  She will go in and out 
of favor, just as Frank Baum and Charles Dickens and any number of 
others have done.  Her writing will be seen as good or bad, her work as 
well-written or poorly-written, according to the fashion of the time 
and the opinion of whoever is doing the analysis.  But in the end it 
will all be politics, because objective standards for such things 
simply DO NOT EXIST.


Lupinlore
>









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Fri Nov 11 06:29:42 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:29:42 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dktpla+u1k4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl1dom+drrm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142846

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:

> Dumbledore had two choices-
> 
> 1.) Harry could be comfortable and away from the Dursleys
> 
> 2.) Harry could be safe from a pack of mad deranged Death Eaters who
> were likely bent on Harry's torture and murder.
> 
> So ...comfortable ...or DEAD.
> 
> Seems like an easy choice.


Does it now?  I don't think we would all agree that such was the 
choice that faced Dumbledore or that he made the correct choice.  

But actually, that isn't the issue, anyway.  The issue is, I think, 
the fact that JKR was not at all clear with that final speech in 
OOTP.  It simply puts Dumbledore in far too bad a light for 
an "epitome of goodness."  And I do think she means us to take that 
at face value.  

Why does it place him in such a bad light?  Because it raises the 
idea that he knew what was going on at the Dursleys (in fact knew in 
advance it would go on) and did not intervene forcefully to put a 
stop to it, as it was his absolute moral duty to do.  There is NO, 
and I repeat, NO, excuse for turning a blind eye to child abuse.  And 
yes, what was going on at the Dursleys WAS child abuse and if 
Dumbledore turned a blind eye and did not intervene he WAS an 
accessory thereto.  And no, the safety of the wizarding world is NOT 
an excuse and no, the idea that Harry "might" be in danger somewhere 
else is NOT an excuse.

By backing off Dumbledore's knowledge in HBP -- and yes, I think JKR 
pays a LOT more attention to discussions in the fandom than she 
sometimes lets on and was very deliberately backing off -- JKR 
restored him to his "epitome" status, but at the cost of making him 
into a benign bungler.  But better that than a child abuser.


Lupinlore









From darqali at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 00:28:01 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:28:01 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dl08vu+oot7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl0oih+860c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142847

darqali:
> > why assume *any* given 
> > technology or innovation {like, the musical forms discussed} are 
> > purely Muggle in origin?

colebiancardi:
> except there is no such thing as Wizards :)  Sorry, there are tons 
of 
> ancient ruins in Britian and Europe from the old Roman Empire - if 
> Wizards are so advanced with plumbing, why are they so woefully out 
> of touch with the concept of iPods or its forefather, the Walkman?  
> Or that they still use candles and torches instead of electricity?

darqali:

Well, *I * was discussing Potterverse, not the real world!

I have already told you that I am well aware of the technology of 
ancient Rome;  but as I noted, notable figures of the {real} Ancient 
World appear on Chocolate Frog cards .... so the ancient inventors 
you are so keen to credit could well have been Wizards, not Muggles.

Now, to answer your questions:  We have been told in canon that no 
electric device will *work* in magical  environments.  Wizards use 
what works for them.  Fires and candles work and modern electric 
lights and devices won't.

In some cases, they have *no need* for Muggle inventions.  Muggles 
use matches because they can't simply "conjure" a fire.  Wizards 
don't *need* that particular Muggle invention, for one simple 
example.  That doesn't make Wizard culture "backwards".

In other cases, they may use the *same* technology .... such as 
mechanical watches and clocks .... or use *superior* technology, such 
as the wonderous clocks and watches owned by the Weasleys and 
Dumbledore.

How "backward" is a culture that has invented the Pensieve?  the 
Vanishing Cabinet?

And if you propose that Wizards were simply using Roman technology, 
you have yet to explain the flush toilets {Romans didn't have}; the 
indoor toilets {Romans didn't have} and the entire concept of 
separate facilities for males and females {totally foreign to Roman 
sensibilities; their toilets weren't even *enclosed* and males and 
females used the same facilities, at the same time!}

You might also explain why Wizards built Hogwarts using Roman 
plumbing, but neglected to install a perfectly workable, non-electric 
hypocaust central heating system while they were at it ....  would have 
been a lot more comfy in January IMO....

"darqali"






From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Nov 11 05:46:56 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:46:56 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore at the Dursleys'
In-Reply-To: <1131645997.2506.74585.m32@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAP6OaizBd/kiDRtTHjt7WgAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142848

> 
> Bruce Alan Wilson:
> I do like this comparison.  You must remember that the Wizardling 
World is a much more conservative one than ours; this is not 
unsurprising given that wizards live much longer than Muggles  
Consider Dumbledore's age.  If you have ever read Jane Austen, the 
Bronte Sisters, Dickens, or other 19th C. authors you will see that in 
that era middle- and upper-class people had a fairly strict protocol 
about 'paying a call.'  

a_svirn:

If you think that Dumbledore conforms the conventions of 19th century 
protocol, you need to reread the aforementioned authors. Because he 
does not, not even close. 


Bruce Alan Wilson:
Really?  I don't have my books with me, but (from memory) what about the
sequence in 'Pride and Prejudice' when Lady Catherine comes to the Bennett
household to warn Lizzie off from Darcy?  She arrives unannounced and uninvited,
just as Dumbledore does, but Mrs. Bennett doesn't--really CAN'T refuse her
admission, for to do so would be even worse manners than Lady C.'s unannounced
visit.  







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Fri Nov 11 08:10:37 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:10:37 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
Message-ID: <dl1jlt+rpt7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142849

In message 142693 Nora said:

"Agency seems to be important for fault to accrue (which is why
the 'it wasn't actually an AK' is so important to keeping Snape
clean, isn't it?)."


It is true that a lot of discussion has centered on the idea that the 
spell Snape used on the tower was either not an AK or if it was an AK 
it wasn't a successful one.  What I would like to ask is this: What 
would a successful AK mean?

The AK has been presented to us as an Unforgivable.  It is one of the 
few things that have been clearly and specifically delineated in the 
books as absolutely and totally wrong for all wizards, full stop.  Of 
course, even that has an exception as we hear about Aurors being 
allowed to use Unforgivables.  Nevertheless, so far we have seen only 
truly evil characters casting successful unforgiveables.

So, if it really was a true AK, what would that mean?  Would it be 
possible for Snape to be truly and completely on the side of light if 
he indeed used a real unforgiveable?  I think many people sense that 
the answer to that is "No," and hence we have an argument about 
whether he really cast an AK.

As I see it we have three possibilities if the AK was genuine and 
successful:

1) Snape is evil.  Very straightforward, if not particularly 
interesting.

2) Snape is good and his use of the AK is a special case, as with the 
Aurors.  Okay, but that's hard to swallow, especially as Snape isn't 
an auror and even the aurors' use of unforgiveables is presented to 
us in a way that makes them seem morally questionable.  Why would a 
good Snape who wanted to kill Dumbledore use an AK?  There would be 
many other ways to kill the man without resorting to an 
Unforgiveable.  Is that because it's what a DE would do?  But why did 
the DEs in the ministry at the end of OOTP seem so reluctant to use 
them?

3)  We are supposed to take the word "Unforgiveable" as being 
literal, morally if not always legally.  Thus if Snape did indeed use 
an Unforgiveable he's not good in a moral and magical sense.  Of 
course a not-good Snape need not be loyal to Voldemort.  

It seems to me, OFH!Snape theorist that I am, that number 3 seems the 
most likely given a successful AK.  It would allow room for Snape to 
have a role in the defeat of Voldemort (I agree that a totally DE 
Snape wouldn't be all that exciting), but at the same time would give 
due to all of the evidence that Snape has a severe dark side that 
merits concern and indeed, punishment.  It would mean that the AK is 
in fact another clue about Snape, just as are DD's constant 
blitherings about how he trusts the Potions Master.  DD is telling us 
that Snape is not always on the side of evil, but the AK is telling 
us he's not one of the good guys, either.  It would also help to 
explain what JKR meant when she said that DD was afraid the DADA job 
would bring out the worst in Snape.

In any case, if we take JKR at her word about Unforgiveables - and I 
don't think we have much evidence that she wasn't being literal - I 
don't see any way for Snape to cast a successful AK and come out, in 
the end, as being good (in the sense of morally good, not in the 
sense of being against Voldy, which could spring from all kinds of 
motivations).

Could a Snape that has cast an AK be redeemed?  I suppose so, but 
only at the cost of his life (after giving an apology to Harry and 
Neville for his behavior, of course, which would be required for his 
redemption under any circumstances).*  What message would that send 
about redemption, I hear some ask?  Simply that redemption is very 
hard and very costly, and sometimes costs you everything you have.


Lupinlore

*Would a Snape who dies but does not admit he has been wrong and 
apologize be redeemed?  The answer is absolutely no.









From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 09:11:47 2005
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:11:47 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <4373BDC8.2020608@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dl1n8j+7gh7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142850

Well how's this for a mind warp...

(a conflux of love spells occuring at once)..

Snape performed a spell to save Lily...yet Lily sacrificed herself 
to save Harry...so instead of Snape getting Lily...he gets to save 
her son.

I don't want to believe this..I loathe Snape..

I just have a sneaky suspicion that Lily may have been friends with 
Narcissa...(makes more sense than simply snape pining away after 
Lily)...This makes good sense when one considers the Hermione/Ginny 
relationship and reasoning why Snape made an UV with 
Narcissa.  ...and why Bella was in some complete other train of 
thought during spinner's end.
Doddie











From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 10:41:40 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:41:40 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore at the Dursleys'
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAP6OaizBd/kiDRtTHjt7WgAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dl1sh4+covk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142851


> Bruce Alan Wilson:
> Really?  I don't have my books with me, but (from memory) what 
about the
> sequence in 'Pride and Prejudice' when Lady Catherine comes to the 
Bennett
> household to warn Lizzie off from Darcy?  She arrives unannounced 
and uninvited,
> just as Dumbledore does, but Mrs. Bennett doesn't--really CAN'T 
refuse her
> admission, for to do so would be even worse manners than Lady C.'s 
unannounced
> visit.
>

a_svirn:
What kind of example is this? Lady Catharine manners are appalling 
and Mrs. Bennett is universally regarded as a very vulgar person, 
both designing and encroaching.  Besides, you yourself say that Lady 
Catharine's manners are bad, so how does it follow, that Dumbledore 
is well-mannered? 







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 10:51:57 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:51:57 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dl1dom+drrm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl1t4d+eh9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142852

 Lupinlore:
>
 Why does it place him in such a bad light?  Because it raises the 
> idea that he knew what was going on at the Dursleys (in fact knew 
in 
> advance it would go on) and did not intervene forcefully to put a 
> stop to it, as it was his absolute moral duty to do.  There is NO, 
> and I repeat, NO, excuse for turning a blind eye to child abuse.  
And 
> yes, what was going on at the Dursleys WAS child abuse and if 
> Dumbledore turned a blind eye and did not intervene he WAS an 
> accessory thereto.  And no, the safety of the wizarding world is 
NOT 
> an excuse and no, the idea that Harry "might" be in danger 
somewhere 
> else is NOT an excuse.


And not only that. Although unlike Lupinlore I do not think Rowling 
such a poor writer, I do believe that this "blood protection" thing 
is not one of her better ideas. She has drilled this "All you need 
is Love" mantra into our heads for years now, she has pretty well 
trashed out the subject of anti-Mudblood prejudices and how it is 
ridiculous to place so much reliance on one's origins. And yet, when 
it comes down to the matters of Life and Death it tunes out suddenly 
that a shared gene pool is much more important than a shared 
sentiment. 

a_svirn







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Fri Nov 11 12:01:59 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:01:59 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl0jiu+gtmf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl217n+aajm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142853

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
 
> Jen, hoping hickengruendler will add to the list with his suggestion 
> of Regulus [as "That awful boy"], as he would be a never-before-
analyzed possbility.

Hickengruendler:

Well, like I said, I don't really think it is him, my money is still on 
Snape. The reason, why I wouldn't rule Regulus out, is his deathdate, 
as mentioned on the Black family tree. It is awfully close to Harry's 
birth, and I wondered, if those two storylines are even more connected, 
than we think. Namely that Regulus went against Voldemort, because 
Voldemort targeted the Potter's son. It's basically the same argument 
as with Snape, he's just replaced by Regulus. But of course it being 
Snape would have a much bigger impact on Harry, than it being the dead 
brother of his dead godfather. Another problem with the Regulus theory 
is, that it's unlikely, that pureblood "royalty" Regulus would befriend 
a muggleborn during school. Regulus' eye-opener seemed to have come 
after Hogwarts, which makes it pretty unrealistic, that he had any 
close contact with Lily. I suppose it's more likely that he went 
against Voldemort, because he found out that Voldie was after a 
helpless baby, and it had nothing to do with the fact, that it was 
Lily's baby.

As you can see, I don't really believe in this theory myself, I just 
wanted to mention him as a *possible* candidate.

Hickengruendler







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 11 12:40:19 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:40:19 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl0jiu+gtmf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl23fj+ob53@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142854

Jen:
> 1) Peter--For plot purposes, Peter going home with Lily could 
> explain a few things. We still don't know the reason why Dumbledore 
> suspected a spy among the Potter's friends.  If DD learned 
Voldemort 
> had knowledge of the Dursleys, that would certainly narrow down the 
> field of who was passing secrets about the Potters. In addition, it 
> could explain why Dumbledore wrote to Petunia prior to asking for 
> Harry to live with them, if he had reason to warn her of possible 
> danger.

Ceridwen:
And it would be in character with the Lily we met too briefly in the 
books.  Bring the poor, forgotten tag-along home, try to improve his 
self-esteem, etc.

It would also make his betrayal that much more horriffic, at least 
for me.  He would have taken her hospitality, then made sure she died.

Jen:
> 2) Sirius (colebiancardi's suggestion)--Hmm, never considered 
> Sirius. He probably *would* qualify as completely 'awful' to 
> Petunia! Now the question is would he try to charm her or tease her 
> for being so priggish? The downside of Sirius is he was so closely 
> tied with James, it's hard to picture him going home with Lily 
> without James attached at the hip. And if James was there, we have 
> no need for mystery, right?!?

Ceridwen:
I doubt it was Sirius as well.  Where Sirius goes, there goes James.  
Unless James had another commitment (family stuff, wedding, funeral) 
and Sirius was at loose ends?  He, and James too, I think, would be 
the type to carelessly bandy magic about, tease Petunia for any 
number of things, and devil her with his magic until she hated him 
and thought he was awful.  Something like the twins with Dudley.  Not 
mean-spirited, but awful nonetheless.

Jen:
> 3) Remus--He seems the most likely Marauder to have been friends 
> with Lily, especially if they were Gryffindor prefects together. 
> Plus he was naturally more serious than the others and it's in-
> character for him to discuss the intricacies of Azkaban and 
> dementors (already getting started on his knowledge of dark 
> creatures). A reason for the plot is harder to come by, why would 
> Harry be surprised to find out Petunia knew Lupin? If it's Lupin, 
> more likely the surprise will come about in the opposite direction, 
> Harry's shock that Petunia actually had contact with people other 
> than Lily and James. 

Ceridwen:
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Lupin visiting a Muggle home.  
>From the limited glimpse we get into summer visiting amongst Hogwarts 
students, the visits seem to last a good part of the vacation.  
Harry, I think, spent the least amount of time at the Weasleys, 
wasn't it a couple of weeks? in GoF, and part of that was at the 
WWC?  But usually, it's a month, or six weeks, or the entire two 
months they're off school.  Lupin would have to leave for a short 
time during the full moon phase, making excuses of course, then 
return.  I can't see him accepting invitations for more than a couple 
of weeks because of his 'furry little problem'.

As boring as it is, I would have to go with James as the 'awful 
boy'.  I would love it to be Snape, and now that Sirius has been 
mentioned, he'd be great, too.  But, Lily has a reason to bring James 
home either the summer between their sixth and seventh year, or the 
summer after they graduate (or both).  She could even bring him home 
at any time during the next year, as her fiance.  She loves him, she 
wants him to meet her parents.  Petunia's use of 'awful' could just 
mean he's 'one of THEM', a magical aberration, something wholly 
unacceptable to her.  And, James and Lily could have been discussing 
a news article about Azkaban, with James acting as tour guide to the 
WW and explaining about the Dementors, with Petunia either right 
there, or overhearing.

Ceridwen.






From altered.earth at ntlworld.com  Fri Nov 11 14:12:37 2005
From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:12:37 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dl0oih+860c@eGroups.com>
References: <dl0oih+860c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4374A6D5.9070703@ntlworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142855

darqali wrote:

> 
> And if you propose that Wizards were simply using Roman technology, 
> you have yet to explain the flush toilets {Romans didn't have}; the 
> indoor toilets {Romans didn't have} snip
> ...their toilets weren't even *enclosed* and males and 
> females used the same facilities, at the same time!}
> 
> 
> 
> "darqali"
> 
> 
Sorry, list elves, I know its OT and quotes no canon, but I can't let 
this go by.

Indoor toilets and sewers have been around at least 5000 years. Skara 
Brae in the Orkneys has both and is neolithic. The drains were lined 
with birch bark as I recall. The Indus Valley civilisation also had 
flushing toilets before 1500BC.
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/CHAMBER/Hist_bak.HTM

digger


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10/11/2005




From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 11 14:18:07 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:18:07 -0000
Subject: the WW's creativity
In-Reply-To: <dl0oih+860c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl296v+o474@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142856

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" <darqali at y...> wrote:
>
> darqali:
> > > why assume *any* given 
> > > technology or innovation {like, the musical forms discussed} 
are 
> > > purely Muggle in origin?
> 
> colebiancardi:
> > except there is no such thing as Wizards :)  Sorry, there are 
tons 
> of 
> > ancient ruins in Britian and Europe from the old Roman Empire - 
if 
> > Wizards are so advanced with plumbing, why are they so woefully 
out 
> > of touch with the concept of iPods or its forefather, the 
Walkman?  
> > Or that they still use candles and torches instead of electricity?
> 
> darqali:
> > 
> Now, to answer your questions:  We have been told in canon that no 
> electric device will *work* in magical  environments.  Wizards use 
> what works for them.  Fires and candles work and modern electric 
> lights and devices won't.

colebiancardi:Uhmm, you misunderstood me - I stated the concepts of 
those inventions, not the actual usage.  Sure they use what works for 
them, but after all this time, there hasn't been an invention to 
produce lighting & heating on a large scale.  They still use candles 
and fireplaces.   Nor was I implying that Wizards are *backwards* in 
any way.  
> 
<big snip>
> > And if you propose that Wizards were simply using Roman 
technology, 
> you have yet to explain the flush toilets {Romans didn't have}; the 
> indoor toilets {Romans didn't have} and the entire concept of 
> separate facilities for males and females {totally foreign to Roman 
> sensibilities; their toilets weren't even *enclosed* and males and 
> females used the same facilities, at the same time!}

colebiancarid: Romans did have indoor plumbing and bathrooms (water 
closet is a toilet) and they were flushing, although it worked with a 
constant flow of water through them, instead of flushing when you are 
done.  However, who is to say that Hogwarts didn't start out like 
that and then progressed as the ages passed?  And doesn't Myrtle live 
in the U-bend in the bathroom(or liked to go there)?  The U-bend 
wasn't invented until 1782.  Now, one could state that the WW was so 
advanced they invented plumbing and U-bends and flushing systems all 
at once, but wouldn't it make more sense they progressed as the ages 
went by?  And upgraded their old buildings?
  
more on indoor bathrooms & flushing toilets(Romans):
"Luxurious indoor bathrooms have been found in the homes of upper-
crust Romans predating the Empire's famed public baths. In the ruins 
of Pompeii, destroyed by Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D., have been found 
private homes with entire submerged rooms that served as baths, or 
perhaps more accurately described as indoor pools. Marble steps led 
down from the concrete floor of the main house. Walls were marble-
lined, and in a hollow space under the floor, a fire burned. The heat 
passed up through hollow terra cotta tiles to keep both air and water 
a comfortable temperature. 

Also discovered in the Pompeii ruins were ancient water spigots and 
water closets flushed by water from a cistern. Included are metal 
hinges that archaeologists believe attached to wooden toilet seats 
that have since deteriorated. Some homes in Pompeii had as many as 30 
water taps."

b) In the beginning, men & women DID have separate baths -
"At first, Roman men and women had their separate public baths. As 
time passed mixed nude bathing became the norm, albeit with "eyes 
forward" cultural mores. By the time of Rome's collapse in the 5th 
century A.D., the baths had devolved into little more than brothels. 
This debauchery mirrored the general descent into decadence that 
historians associate with the Empire's decline. "

so, it seems that that Romans knew about the concept of separate 
baths, but in later times, preferred to have mixed bathing(a cultural 
thing - some cultures today have mixed bathing as well).

both quotes are from this website: 
http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverSt
oryItem/0,2730,4435,00.html

and let's face it, the word plumbing is plumbum - which is Latin for 
lead, which the Roman pipes were made of.  Obviously, the Wizard 
World owes much to the Roman's - what about all that Latin for the 
spells?  And since Hogwarts doesn't have power, they either are using 
hydrostatic pressure with their pipelines to put water in the multi-
level castle or just plain magic... 
> 
> You might also explain why Wizards built Hogwarts using Roman 
> plumbing, but neglected to install a perfectly workable, non-
electric 
> hypocaust central heating system while they were at it ....  would 
have 
> been a lot more comfy in January IMO....

colebiancardi:For a building the size of Hogwarts, that would be a 
lot of house elves to manage a hypocaust central heating system - way 
too big, staircases always moving, very high ceilings, drafty, etc. 

colebiancardi
(The Romans and Greeks are credited to be the inventors of modern 
plumbing and the Romans for their central heating system - I am glad 
to see that today's population is looking at how the Romans did 
heated floors - a great concept and high time it came back in style!!)






From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 11 14:27:09 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:27:09 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl23fj+ob53@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl29nt+cq6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142857

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...> 
wrote:
> > Jen:
> > 2) Sirius (colebiancardi's suggestion)--Hmm, never considered 
> > Sirius. He probably *would* qualify as completely 'awful' to 
> > Petunia! Now the question is would he try to charm her or tease 
her 
> > for being so priggish? The downside of Sirius is he was so 
closely 
> > tied with James, it's hard to picture him going home with Lily 
> > without James attached at the hip. And if James was there, we 
have 
> > no need for mystery, right?!?
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I doubt it was Sirius as well.  Where Sirius goes, there goes 
James.  
> Unless James had another commitment (family stuff, wedding, 
funeral) 
> and Sirius was at loose ends?  He, and James too, I think, would be 
> the type to carelessly bandy magic about, tease Petunia for any 
> number of things, and devil her with his magic until she hated him 
> and thought he was awful.  Something like the twins with Dudley.  
Not 
> mean-spirited, but awful nonetheless.
> 
> 

Sirius did live with James's family after the age of 16.  I mentioned 
the possibility of Sirius, because I could see both James & Sirius 
going to Lily's for a holiday, as I can't see Sirius hanging out with 
James's parents by himself.  It could have been a conversation that 
Sirius had with Lily when James was in the bathroom or something....I 
mean, we see Hermione & Harry alone talking, yet it is Ron she likes 
as a boyfriend, not Harry.  So, I don't think it a stretch to have 
Sirius having a bit of conversation with Lily outside of James's 
presence.

But I still think it is James.  Petunia loathed him - I think she 
felt that "awful boy" comment was enough - should she had said "that 
awful boy, who was to be your father" instead?  

I don't think it is Snape(could be wrong).  For the reasons I stated 
in post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142821
snipping part of it here:

I'm wondering how old Lily was when she brought home this "nasty
boy"? Was she around 11 or 12? I cannot see her doing this at an
older age, after the pensive memory in OotP. Also, if she brought
Snape home over the holidays for a visit, don't you think that James
or Sirius would have noticed that? Hogwarts isn't a small school,
but James seems to have liked Lily for a while. In fact, if Lily,
as a Griffidor, had a close, friendly relationship with Snape, a
Slytherin, when they were first starting out at Hogwarts, wouldn't
that have been noticed? In Harry's times, and also based on the
MMWP's friendship, seems like that close friendships, ones where you
would invite them home for the holidays, would be noticed and be
common knowledge amongst that boy(James) who really liked Lily - he
would have found out everything there is to know about her, don't you
think?


colebiancardi






From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 14:46:19 2005
From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory)
In-Reply-To: <dl0ttb+unke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051111144620.31009.qmail@web31714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142858



--- justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Goddlefrood wrote:
> As stated elsewhere Petunia is really the only
> candidate for being
> the person who will perform magic in desperate
> circumstances later in
> life when LV or some DEs turn up at 4 Privet Drive
> in book 7 after
> Harry's seventeenth birthday. 

I agree with Petunia doing the magic. It would be just
deserts

> Carol responds:
> Actually, Petunia may be the most popular candidate,
> Muggle though
> we've repeatedly been told she is, but she's not the
> "only" candidate.

Snip

> Mrs. Figg, the Order member who helped Harry after
> the Dementor
> attack, is just as likely to show up this time as
> before (warned by
> her part-Kneazle cats that DEs have appeared at 4
> Privet Drive, or
> perhaps anticipating an attack when the protective
> magic ends).
> 
> Unlike Petunia, Mrs. Figg knows what a spell is and
> how to cast one;
> she's just never succeeded in doing it.
> Nevertheless, there is some
> trace of magic in her--she can talk to cats, and
> she's familiar with
> the WW despite being only a Squib. If a DE were to
> knock Harry's wand
> from his hand, she would at least know which end to
> point and what
> words to say. "Stupefy!" would do. "Expecto
> Patronum" might be better
> if she could somehow summon the Order by conjuring
> her Patronus.
> 

Chris:

While I think the Mrs Figg may do unintentional magic,
she has been socially and psycologically pre-disposed
to the idea that she cannot pick up a want and do
magic.  

In a panic situation, only the primitave reptilian
portion of our brains functions and this is not the
part of the brain that would allow Mrs Figg to use
intentional magic, such as wand magic.  If there is a
situation where she is afraid for her life and Potter,
her protector at the moment, is taken away from the
fight (aka, wand knocked away, him knocked out) the
level of helplessness would increase.  We have already
seen her reactions to dementors where she is somewhat
in control; to run away (OotP) and when questioned on
magic, she unthinkingly says she cannot do magic, and
will not touch Potter's wand.  

As an instructor of self-defence in a martial arts
school, I see all ages, from 4 to 56, deal with stress
and we are unique in that we use real situations to
bring real fear.  Our job is to watch what is the base
reactions of our students when the higher rational
brain is shut off.  For most, it is to panic, because
that is what society has taught (women cower, men
bolster).  We replace that cower/bolster reaction with
something effective, but it takes time (12-18 months).

How does this relate?  Mrs Figg would need to be
practicing in a real fear situation to grab a wand and
cast a spell AND beleive she is doing it correctly in
order for a chance it may work when the need arises. 
That is why Hermione freeze before moving in the
books, her rational functions are shut off for the
moment and she never trained the primative ones to do
anything.

To have Mrs Figg do unintentional magic under heavy
stress is beleivable, but to do intentional magic in
the same type of situation would make the story
unbeleivable.  JKR would be violating basic human
psycology (and I would ask and psycologist or
psyciatrist to give the names and better details of
this).  

But the laws of expectation are at work here as well. 
If a person is expected to do something, then they
will do it, and if they are expected to not be able to
do something, they will not.  Mrs Figg will expect, as
will all people in the books, to never be able to use
magic, just as we in the real world never expect to
use Harry Potter type magic. I can no more cast a
stupify than Mrs Figg because neither beleive it can
be done.

Chris

PS: Try the expectation thing on kids, it really work.
I did it with my step-son and it worked.  The first
time it didn't, I showed disappointment, and never had
him disappoint me again. 

"You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov 11 14:56:08 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:56:08 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dl1dom+drrm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2be8+dvq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142859

Lupinlore:
> But actually, that isn't the issue, anyway.  The issue is, I think, 
> the fact that JKR was not at all clear with that final speech in 
> OOTP.  It simply puts Dumbledore in far too bad a light for 
> an "epitome of goodness."  And I do think she means us to take that 
> at face value.  
> 
> Why does it place him in such a bad light?  Because it raises the 
> idea that he knew what was going on at the Dursleys (in fact knew in 
> advance it would go on) and did not intervene forcefully to put a 
> stop to it, as it was his absolute moral duty to do.  There is NO, 
> and I repeat, NO, excuse for turning a blind eye to child abuse.  

Pippin:
in the broad sense, yes,  we're all guilty for every real-life, flesh and 
blood child who's suffering at this moment and we, not being
fictional,  have no excuse if we're not doing something about it. 

But the bottom line for me is that just as people don't like being locked
up, whether they deserve to be or not, people don't like being
ordered about, even if the orders would be good for them. They will 
rebel, eventually,  no matter how powerless and intimidated they seem 
to be. That's what happened with Kreacher, and it would have happened 
with Vernon and Petunia. Dumbledore's intervention might have handed 
Harry straight to the death eaters. 

It might soothe the moral indignation of some readers to see 
Dumbledore take ineffectual steps, because at least he would 
seem to be doing something. But that's the Ministry's path and 
we know what JKR thinks of it.

The only reason it was safe for Dumbledore to admonish the 
Dursleys in HBP, IMO,  was that the WW was now alerted to Voldemort's
return and the Dursley's protection was about to run out anyway. All
the same he doesn't demand that the Dursleys defend Harry, thus
risking that they could betray him. He gives them a choice.
If  they did deny Harry their protection, there was
little left to lose and  Harry  could take refuge with 
the Weasleys with the full resources of the Ministry
and its aurors on alert to protect them -- unlike the situation after 
Voldemort had fallen and everyone felt safe.

I think Dumbledore let go with fifteen years of anger and frustration
when he set those glasses bouncing off the Dursley's heads. All the
same he showed admirable restraint, IMO. I would have used the
fire-irons. I do wonder very much what happened in the ten minutes
while Harry was off packing his trunk. It seems to me JKR engineered
that interval very carefully. Any ideas?

Pippin






From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 15:10:29 2005
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:10:29 -0000
Subject: Harry Helping Ron Financially?
In-Reply-To: <dl178h+q26l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2c95+s52o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142860


> Foodiedb:
> 
> > Hi all, 
> > I am rather new at this, so I am sorry if this has already been 
> > covered, but I was wondering why Harry doesn't offer to financially 
> > help Ron and family?  For example, why doesn't he offer to buy Ron 
a 
> > new wand in Chamber, or why doesn't he offer to buy them a new 
> > house, etc.., etc.
> 
> 
> va32h wrote:
> I think that Ron and his family would be rather embarrassed by such a 
> gesture - and Harry would not want to do that to his best friend and 
> the family he loves so much. 

ibchawz responds:
Harry realizes this in GOF.  At the Quidditch World Cup, Harry buys 
stuff for Ron and Ron attempts to refuse these gifts.  Harry convinces 
Ron that they are early Christmas presents.  He later pays Harry for 
these with the Leprechaun gold.  In the CoMC class, the niffler 
retrieves the leprechaun gold and Hagrid warns the class there is no 
need to try to steal the gold since it will disappear anyway.  Ron 
questions Harry as to why he never mentioned that the gold 
disappeared.  Ron again feels that he owes Harry.  

Harry also gives the TWT winnings to Fred and George as startup capital 
for their joke shop.  He instructs them to buy Ron new dress robes and 
to not tell anyone where they got the galleons.  Since Fred and George 
are now self supporting, the Weasley family is not as financially 
stressed.

These instances indicate to me that Ron may be poor but he is still 
proud and doesn't want any handouts or pity.






From lealess at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 15:50:23 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:50:23 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl1jlt+rpt7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2ejv+65vi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142861

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> So, if it really was a true AK, what would that mean?  Would it be 
> possible for Snape to be truly and completely on the side of light 
> if he indeed used a real unforgiveable?  I think many people sense 
> that the answer to that is "No," and hence we have an argument about 
> whether he really cast an AK.
> 
> As I see it we have three possibilities if the AK was genuine and 
> successful:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> 2) Snape is good and his use of the AK is a special case, as with 
> the Aurors.  Okay, but that's hard to swallow, especially as Snape 
> isn't an auror and even the aurors' use of unforgiveables is  
> presented to us in a way that makes them seem morally questionable.  
> Why would a good Snape who wanted to kill Dumbledore use an AK?  
> There would be many other ways to kill the man without resorting to 
> an Unforgiveable.  Is that because it's what a DE would do?  But why 
> did the DEs in the ministry at the end of OOTP seem so reluctant to 
> use them?
> 

Picking up on No. 2, why use an AK?  Because it seems to be a quick
and therefore perhaps painless way to kill, especially in a situation
that called for a rapid response.  This follows the greater good
defense for an AK, the soldier following orders in a time of war, the
man cornered into making an impossible choice.  If the killing was
done to put Dumbledore out of some misery, i.e., a mercy killing, a
quick and perhaps therefore painless death is also a good choice. 
Neither of these makes Snape into an evil person.

What other ways could Snape have dispatched the Headmaster?  Bring
him to Voldemort to be tortured to death?  He didn't do that with
Harry, either.  Throw him to the werewolf?  That wouldn't have
guaranteed death.  Leave him there to let a painful and perhaps
mentally-debilitating poison do its worst?  Harry was the one who
forced him to drink the potion, after all, under orders.  Drop him
from a tower? 

But, I am of the ever-hopeful, not-an-AK camp, believing Dumbledore
chose to die and Snape facilitated this, for many reasons, not
necessarily using an AK.

> 3)  We are supposed to take the word "Unforgiveable" as being 
> literal, morally if not always legally.  Thus if Snape did indeed 
> use an Unforgiveable he's not good in a moral and magical sense. 
> Of course a not-good Snape need not be loyal to Voldemort.  
> 
> <SNIP>

There are three Unforgivables, of course.  Cruciatus we have seen in
abundance, and even Harry tries it.  Imperius we have seen in
abundance.  Crouch Sr. used it to keep his son in line.  Not purely
evil people use Unforgivables.  If Hermione continues to believe the
ends justify the means, I wouldn't put it past her to try Imperius as
expediency.

AK ? we have several examples.  It is quick and seems to be painless,
except for the look of terror, which is not explained.  I wonder why
it is more unforgivable than, say, torturing someone to death or
throwing someone to the werewolves or using an insidious poison or
dropping someone from a tower (which probably wouldn't kill the
average wizard, anyway).  Why isn't killing in general frowned upon?
Why is AK singled out?  Because it's foolproof -- except for baby
Harry, Fawkes, and the immortal Voldemort?

Are there consequences to AK of which we are unaware, like a soul
being cast into perpetual limbo or some kind of hell, or being held in
a wand forever?  If that is the case, would a simple Prior Incantato
release the soul?

Just wondering.

lealess







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 16:47:31 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:47:31 -0000
Subject: Lily, Snape, and Potions WAS Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory
In-Reply-To: <dl0mfg+1u3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2hv3+caks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142862


> The second suspect is the other Evans girl, Lily Potter. Much 
> discussion has been ongoing regarding Snape's potential infatuation 
> with Lily. She is likely to have been his guide in Potions.

"Likely"?  How swiftly speculation turns into rumour, and rumour into
fact... 

I would say, from the evidence of the text, that it's 'likely' the
other way around:  Snape was Lily's guide in Potions.  Slughorn
compares Harry to his mother because he's a NATURAL, like Lily.  A
natural who comes up with the perfect result instantly, instinctively,
and without effort.  Harry wasn't, of course, a natural at all: he was
relying on the efforts of somebody who HAD sweated over all the
mistakes and alternatives.  It's a lot harder to look like a natural
when you're going through the part where you screw up, which I dare
say is a pretty large part of experimental potions making.  

Slughorn says Harry is, potions-wise, just like his mother.  It could
mean he uses the same sort of potions techniques.  But if he was
REALLY going to be just like his mother, there might be a hint there
that Lily, like Harry, was relying on the Half-Blood Prince.

In any event, if Snape ever needed help in Potions, he seems to have
got over it, fortunately for Lupin.

I will say that, Snape fan though I am, I don't get a big kick out of
this theory, because lord knows Lily needs to be something in addition
 to a wonderful mother, and it would be nice to have a genius female
character to supplement all those bright inventive boys.  But from the
evidence we have I would say it's more 'likely' that Snape tutored
Lily, than the other way around.  Maybe they worked on the book
together, I don't know if that's a bit too cute though.  

-- Sydney, who still thinks Lily's genius was in charms







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 16:56:59 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:56:59 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse /Blood magic v Love magic
In-Reply-To: <dl1t4d+eh9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2igr+agte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142863

Lupinlore:
<SNIP>
> But actually, that isn't the issue, anyway.  The issue is, I think, 
> the fact that JKR was not at all clear with that final speech in 
> OOTP.  It simply puts Dumbledore in far too bad a light for 
> an "epitome of goodness."  And I do think she means us to take that 
> at face value.  

Alla:

No, she was not ( IMO only of course) - on this point I agreed with 
you in the past and must agree again. As I said earlier, I have no 
problem understanding Dumbledore choice if it comes down to Dead!
Harry or Alive! but Abused!Harry. Well, actually I do have many 
problems with it, but I would like it to be absolutely clear from the 
text that there was no OTHER place for Harry to be safe.

I don't have OOP in front of me, but I don't remember Dumbledore 
saying anywhere in that speech of his that Harry could not have been 
safe anywhere else, that blood protection was the ONLY way to protect 
Harry.

Yes, Dumbledore says that he invoked that magic, yes he says that you 
will be protected from DE where your mother's blood dwells ( 
paraphrase), but I don't remember him mentioning that nothing else 
would have worked. Could be wrong of course.


Lupinlore:
> By backing off Dumbledore's knowledge in HBP -- and yes, I think 
JKR 
> pays a LOT more attention to discussions in the fandom than she 
> sometimes lets on and was very deliberately backing off -- JKR 
> restored him to his "epitome" status, but at the cost of making him 
> into a benign bungler.  But better that than a child abuser.

Alla :

Yes, I agree. I also said several times in the past that for  me the 
speech in OOP would have worked better if among other things 
Dumbledore would have admitted to agonising over the decision to 
leave Harry at Dursleys. His speech in HBP worked for me because at 
least Dumbledore tells us that he wanted Dursleys to treat Harry as a 
son, but to his regret things did not work out that way. So to me 
Dumbledore's expectations in HBP do sound very different from 
Dumbledore's expectation of situation as he described it in OOP " I 
knew you would suffer, I knew I had left you for ten dark and 
difficult years" ( paraphrase).

a_svirn:
> And not only that. Although unlike Lupinlore I do not think Rowling 
> such a poor writer, I do believe that this "blood protection" thing 
> is not one of her better ideas. She has drilled this "All you need 
> is Love" mantra into our heads for years now, she has pretty well 
> trashed out the subject of anti-Mudblood prejudices and how it is 
> ridiculous to place so much reliance on one's origins. And yet, 
when 
> it comes down to the matters of Life and Death it tunes out 
suddenly 
> that a shared gene pool is much more important than a shared 
> sentiment. 


Alla:

Ooooo, this is a GREAT point, a_svirn. I had never thought about it 
on meta level. I've never thought that "blood protection" can be 
looked at as contrary to the main theme of the series.

Indeed, why Harry woudn't be safer with people who love him, instead 
of people who are his blood relatives but cannot stand him?

I mean I am of firm conviction that close family members are supposed 
to love and care for each other, no doubt about it, but if they 
don't, I am also not quite sure why " blood magic" ( for  the lack of 
better term) should be stronger than love magic.

I often speculated that this is strange that Harry staying with 
Dursleys would be safer than Harry staying with Dumbledore, but I 
only thought about it in terms of Dumbledore being the " only one 
Voldemort ever feared".

But Albus also claims to love Harry ( and I think he does), so why 
couldn't his love be stronger protection than forcing Harry on 
Dursleys?

I suppose after his HBP speech we could speculate that he hoped that  
blood magic and love magic will come together and Dursleys will learn 
to love Harry ( treat him like a son?).


JMO of course,

Alla







From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 11 17:23:52 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:23:52 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore at the Dursleys'
In-Reply-To: <dl1sh4+covk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2k38+l71b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142864

> a_svirn:
> What kind of example is this? Lady Catharine manners are appalling 
> and Mrs. Bennett is universally regarded as a very vulgar person, 
> both designing and encroaching.  Besides, you yourself say that Lady 
> Catharine's manners are bad, so how does it follow, that Dumbledore 
> is well-mannered?
>

Magpie:

Not to mention, don't Lady Catherine (Lady being an important title) 
and Mrs. Bennett both occupy the same social circle with agreed upon 
rules?  Dumbledore and the Dursleys are not sharing the same social 
circle at all.  Their rules for Wizards seem to simply be to have as 
little social contact with them as you can.  It's not like Dumbledore 
is going to tell Petunia's social club she didn't let him in, or that 
anyone in their social circle would have a problem with them refusing 
to let a crazy old man in past eleven o'clock.  In fact, I imagine the 
story of how they told the old man to get packing would make for a 
fine story at Vernon's office or Petunia's tea parties.

-m 







From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Fri Nov 11 17:37:48 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:37:48 -0000
Subject: Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory)
In-Reply-To: <dl198a+ao8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2ktc+gq13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142865

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" <rdsilverstein at y...>
wrote:
>(snip)

> It would also be a nice parallel if the magic Petunia performs is in 
> the Battle of Privet Drive to protect her son.
> 
> Hpfan_mom
>
  I completely agree. The only way I can see Petunia using magic is in
defense of her family.(or her clean kitchen haha)I can really see some
dementors or deatheaters coming at Dudders and  Petunia going "Carrie"
on their butts. I wonder how Vernon will react?







From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 11 17:43:52 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:43:52 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dl2be8+dvq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2l8o+dadp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142866

> Pippin:
> in the broad sense, yes,  we're all guilty for every real-life, 
flesh and 
> blood child who's suffering at this moment and we, not being
> fictional,  have no excuse if we're not doing something about it. 
> 
> But the bottom line for me is that just as people don't like being 
locked
> up, whether they deserve to be or not, people don't like being
> ordered about, even if the orders would be good for them. They 
will 
> rebel, eventually,  no matter how powerless and intimidated they 
seem 
> to be. That's what happened with Kreacher, and it would have 
happened 
> with Vernon and Petunia. Dumbledore's intervention might have 
handed 
> Harry straight to the death eaters. 

Magpie:

But if Dumbledore actually trying to make them stop actively abusing 
Harry *might* get him turned over the Death Eaters somehow (I assume 
the Dursleys wouldn't be doing it, as they wouldn't know how) or 
make the Dursleys worse, why do some of the books end with the happy 
idea that the Dursleys are going to be threatened into behaving 
now?  Why does Harry scare them with the idea of his godfather?  Why 
does the entire Order put on a big show of muscle in OotP?  Similar 
things could have been done at any time. 

Basically, to me it seems like the problem is this: Rowling started 
out with a fairy-tale/Roald Dahl idea so Harry has terrible 
parents.  Unfortunately, due to her plot, the magical mentor 
character was also the person engineering his early abuse.  It's the 
mixing of two genres, I think, that's causing a problem.  Dumbledore 
is supposed to be doing the thing where he makes sure that the hero 
is raised ignorant of his destiny, by simple people far from court.  
But in those cases that usually means the kid is raised on a farm so 
that he's simple and maybe made to work hard, but he's not gleefully 
abused Cinderella-style.  Rowling kind of wanted both here--
Cinderella and Percival or whoever, so she leaves you with the 
obvious question of why the Wise Mentor felt it necessary that our 
hero was absued as a child. 

Personally, I really don't get any satisfaction out of the scene 
with Dumbledore and the Dursleys.  First because, I must confess, I 
am a Muggle.  After 6 books I've gotten a little tired of the 
constant Muggle-baiting. The Durlseys are probably intended to be 
wholly unsympathetic, but whenever yet another wizard starts teasing 
them with Magic or making it clear that as Muggles they can not be 
treated as equals and Vernon manages to stand up to them in his 
awful way anyhow, I have to cheer for him.  Even if he's a jerk, at 
least he's rebelling like few Muggles ever can or do.  Besides that, 
it just seems incredibly silly to me that Dumbledore is, as I said 
above, the puppetmaster behind all these years of abuse, so his 
showing up to give the Dursleys a few noogies and an enigmatic 
criticism of the way they raise their son (hey, it's all relative--
they don't enter him in deadly Tournaments so they've got that going 
for them) just seems a little...odd. Like yeah, way to prove a 
point, Albus.   

-m






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 11 17:55:24 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:55:24 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse /Blood magic v Love magic
In-Reply-To: <dl2igr+agte@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2luc+jbck@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142867

> a_svirn:
> I do believe that this "blood protection" thing is not one of her
> better ideas. She has drilled this "All you need is Love" mantra
> into our heads for years now, she has pretty well trashed out the
> subject of anti-Mudblood prejudices and how it is ridiculous to
> place so much reliance on one's origins. And yet, when it comes
> down to the matters of Life and Death it tunes out suddenly that a
> shared gene pool is much more important than a shared sentiment. 

Jen: There's a symbolic factor at work, though, in the protection. 
Love magic is different from just feeling love. Love magic is love-
made-manifest and in this case, residing in Harry's skin. When 
Dumbledore placed the charm and asked Petunia to seal it, he was 
asking for her compassion as much as her blood. He was asking her to 
give Lily's love for Harry a chance to grow and protect him as long 
as possible (even if Petunia felt no love for Harry herself). In 
fact, since we were recently talking about Dumbledore forcing 
Petunia to take Harry, I'm not certain the blood charm would have 
worked if Harry was forced upon her. Petunia *chose* to seal the 
charm, and had a choice to make even if she did so grudgingly, 
bitterly, etc. Haven't most of us said yes to something we didn't 
want to do because we knew it was the right thing to do? And 
sometimes we are changed by the very thing we rejected? 

All convoluted plot theories aside (much as I love them), I'm 
growing to believe the choice to take Harry in will be Petunia's 
story as much as Harry's. There's a reason she said yes when she 
wanted to say no, and the story will take us there. Petunia *will* 
change from the experience of allowing Harry to live with her, even 
if we haven't seen it yet, and that change will symbolize the power 
of love over blood.

Alla:
> I suppose after his HBP speech we could speculate that he hoped
> that blood magic and love magic will come together and Dursleys
> will learn to love Harry ( treat him like a son?).

Jen: "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our 
aims are identical and our hearts are open." (GOF, The Beginning). I 
think you are exactly right that Dumbledore's belief in the open 
heart is his greatest strength as well as his Achilles Heel. I would 
imagine he expected more from the Dursleys, expected Lily's child 
might at least open Petunia's heart a tiny bit, if not Vernon's. Was 
he wrong, like his thinking that Sirius and Snape could put aside 
their differences or thinking love magic could change Riddle's 
closed heart? So far, yes. I'm waiting to see.....

Jen






From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 17:57:38 2005
From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:57:38 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2ejv+65vi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2m2i+6fpi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142868

lealess said:

>Picking up on No. 2, why use an AK? Because it seems to be a quick
>and therefore perhaps painless way to kill, especially in a situation
>that called for a rapid response. This follows the greater good
>defense for an AK, the soldier following orders in a time of war, the
>man cornered into making an impossible choice. If the killing was
>done to put Dumbledore out of some misery, i.e., a mercy killing, a
>quick and perhaps therefore painless death is also a good choice.
>Neither of these makes Snape into an evil person.

Antosha:

And, of course, one must take into account the situation: Snape is standing in front of a 
group of Death Eaters who EXPECT him to use the Killing Curse to dispatch the 
headmaster. If Snape is on the side of the good (and that's how I'm leaning--this week), 
then short of faking it (and I think that's highly unlikely), there really wasn't anything else 
he could have done.

It is good to remember that, like police officers who are authorized to use deadly force 
under certain circumstances, the Aurors have been allowed to use Avada Kedavra. It clearly 
isn't seen as a surefire soul-destroyer or a sign that one is absolutely Dark. It's just... 
Unforgivable.

I come back to the storytelling argument regarding Snape: having him turn out to be what 
he has appeared to be for six books, and what he apparently proved himself to be at the 
end of HBP would be BORING. And JKR is many things as a storyteller, but boring just isn't 
one of them, IMHO.






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 11 18:09:11 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:09:11 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2m2i+6fpi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003501c5e6eb$056fe750$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142869

lealess said:

>Picking up on No. 2, why use an AK? Because it seems to be a quick
>and therefore perhaps painless way to kill, especially in a situation
>that called for a rapid response. This follows the greater good
>defense for an AK, the soldier following orders in a time of war, the
>man cornered into making an impossible choice. If the killing was
>done to put Dumbledore out of some misery, i.e., a mercy killing, a
>quick and perhaps therefore painless death is also a good choice.
>Neither of these makes Snape into an evil person.

Antosha:

And, of course, one must take into account the situation: Snape is standing
in front of a 
group of Death Eaters who EXPECT him to use the Killing Curse to dispatch
the 
headmaster. If Snape is on the side of the good (and that's how I'm
leaning--this week), 
then short of faking it (and I think that's highly unlikely), there really
wasn't anything else 
he could have done.

It is good to remember that, like police officers who are authorized to use
deadly force 
under certain circumstances, the Aurors have been allowed to use Avada
Kedavra. It clearly 
isn't seen as a surefire soul-destroyer or a sign that one is absolutely
Dark. It's just... 
Unforgivable.




Sherry now:

i can't let this one pass.  police officers go to prison if they kill their
captain or brother officers.  Soldiers do not get medals for killing their
own generals!  Neither of these arguments makes sense to me.  If Snape offed
the *enemy's* leaders, that's completely different.  You just don't kill
your own people and get away with it.  Even accidental so-called friendly
fire killings in the military are investigated.  As for The death eaters
being there, that is the time for Snape to come out of hiding and declare
himself to be DDM.  Not to kill his leader in a cowardly self-preserving
act.

I won't comment on so-called mercy killing either because that is just way
too hot a topic for me, at least to engage in.  Sigh.

As for it being too boring to make Snape evil in the end, to me, it would be
quite refreshing.  We've been set up to believe that Snape is mean and evil
and so to believe he isn't really.  So, to make him evil, whether it's out
for himself in true Slytherin fashion, or Voldemort's true disciple, if he's
evil it isn't what most people have expected.  It would also have the great
effect of making Harry right all along, at last!  And since Harry is the
true hero of the books, I'd love to see him be right.

Sherry




From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 11 18:30:26 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:30:26 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
Message-ID: <dl2o02+n8d9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142870



>colebiancardi
>(could be wrong; it could have been Snape; however, I think that may
>have been early on when they first started Hogwarts, not as older
>teens)

Orna:
I agree. Not that there is anything definite pointing this way, but 
I just had some thoughts: Since James is in love with her, and not 
being very successful for some years he would be sure to envy and 
hate anyone succeeding more, especially someone with greasy hair... 
He does passionately hate Snape, so it makes sense to speculate, 
that the fuelling motive is some sort of friendship or closer 
feelings between Snape and Lily. Lily   shows very strong feelings 
against James' humiliation of other students, but we see her 
intervene on Snape's behalf. Of course, when Lily asks him what he 
has against Snape, he would rather stupefy, than admit jealousy.

 James' reaction to her rejection is immediately to direct his 
enragement - towards Snape. 
Snape's calling her mudblood, might be his awkwardness, as has been 
suggested, added with the unbearable humiliation in front of Lily. 
Lily sounds hurt, and says, that she doesn't want Snape to 
apologize, because of James. That seems to hint she was hurt by 
Snape personally, and gave importance to his willful apology. 
Hermione doesn't talk about any expectation towards Draco, when he 
calls her mudblood, so it seems there was some former friendship, or 
at least companionship.  

(I can sure imagine "that awful boy" trying out his nonverbal spells 
and elaborate potion-experiments on Petunia...)

Sailing farther away, I may say, that perhaps James grew to be more 
human, (or sexy? <g>) while Snape went more DEterish. It is 
interesting to think what might have changed Lily's feelings about 
him (James) ? not that it doesn't happen. 

Sailing insanely, perhaps it was the other way round- Lily being 
somewhat more interested in Snape (can't imagine in love here), than 
he in her. (A bit like Ginny with Harry in CoS?). But it's a totally 
unacceptable and revolting theory, written down, just for the sake 
of testing the tolerance of my PC.
  
Orna










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 18:46:44 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:46:44 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2m2i+6fpi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2ouk+f09q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142871

> Antosha:
<SNIP>
> It is good to remember that, like police officers who are 
authorized to use deadly force 
> under certain circumstances, the Aurors have been allowed to use 
Avada Kedavra. It clearly 
> isn't seen as a surefire soul-destroyer or a sign that one is 
absolutely Dark. It's just... 
> Unforgivable.


Alla:

I didn't interpret the narrative about this event as sympathetic or 
even undestanding the necessity durin the war. The person who allowed 
to use Unforgiuveables was Barty Sr., whose reign was not fair and 
just, no?

I was not feeling that narrator aproves what Barty did at all. I 
don't think that this is a solid support for Avada Kedavra even as 
necessity based.
Just my interpretation of course.

Alla






From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 18:47:56 2005
From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:47:56 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <003501c5e6eb$056fe750$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dl2p0s+konp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142872

> Sherry now:
> 
> i can't let this one pass.  police officers go to prison if they kill their
> captain or brother officers.  Soldiers do not get medals for killing their
> own generals!  Neither of these arguments makes sense to me.  If Snape offed
> the *enemy's* leaders, that's completely different.  You just don't kill
> your own people and get away with it.  Even accidental so-called friendly
> fire killings in the military are investigated.  As for The death eaters
> being there, that is the time for Snape to come out of hiding and declare
> himself to be DDM.  Not to kill his leader in a cowardly self-preserving
> act.
> 
> I won't comment on so-called mercy killing either because that is just way
> too hot a topic for me, at least to engage in.  Sigh.
> 
> As for it being too boring to make Snape evil in the end, to me, it would be
> quite refreshing.  We've been set up to believe that Snape is mean and evil
> and so to believe he isn't really.  So, to make him evil, whether it's out
> for himself in true Slytherin fashion, or Voldemort's true disciple, if he's
> evil it isn't what most people have expected.  It would also have the great
> effect of making Harry right all along, at last!  And since Harry is the
> true hero of the books, I'd love to see him be right.
> 
> Sherry
>


Antosha:

True. But spies have killed allies while wearing the uniform of the opposing side and it 
hasn't meant that they've been executed once they crossed back over. It's a particularly 
horrific part of being in deep cover. 

My point about police officers wasn't that they weren't bound by the same laws; it was that 
the AK isn't in and of itself proof of evil.

What is your interpretation of the argument that Harry overheard between DD and SS 
midway through HBP? As I read it, I could only take the conversation as meaning that 
Snape was being pushed (by LV and the Vow) to do something he wasn't willing to do, and 
Dumbledore was telling him that he had to follow it through. I can only assume that DD 
KNEW Malfoy's assignment--as he says he did--and that he therefore knew Snape's 
involvement.

Killing is killing, whether friend or foe. JKR tells us that it tears the soul. Absolutely. But 
that doesn't mean that there aren't times when it can be justified, and it seems to me at 
least possible that Dumbledore himself saw this as one of those times and was urging 
Snape to do what had to be done. If he hadn't, Snape himself would certainly have died 
(having broken the Unbreakable Vow) and Dumbledore himself would probably have 
died--either at the hands of the other DEs or as a result of the potion that he had drunk or 
because of the curse on the ring--the curse that Snape himself rescued Dumbledore from, 
at least temporarily. This way, at least, Snape survives--and two of LV's closest associates 
are both bound to Harry by life debt.

I don't think Snape is a nice man or even a particularly good person. But I can see at least 
the possibility that he did what he did for honorable--or, at least--justifyable reasons.






From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 18:51:57 2005
From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:51:57 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Reminder about OT posts
Message-ID: <dl2p8d+bl34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142873

Greetings from Hexquarters!  

We elfy types have lately noticed a bit of a tendency for threads to 
drift off-topic and thought we would take this opportunity to enlist 
your assistance in keeping threads on-topic and in generally helping 
the HPfGU list run smoothly.  

All posts to the main list must make a canon point and discuss the 
works or words of JK Rowling.  If you want to reply to a post that 
uses extraneous (i.e., non-HP) material to make a canon point, please 
make sure that your response ties the discussion back to the books.  
Take a look at: 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142856

for an example of how to bring the discussion back to canon.

If you want to respond only to extraneous, non-HP points, please post 
your response to our sister list, HPFGU-OTChatter list, which is the 
place for all off-topic posts. It's a fun and friendly place where 
people enjoy talking about all sorts of things, and it can be found 
at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter

Also, be reminded that posts about the upcoming GoF movie (or any of 
the HP films) are also OT and should be posted to HPFGU-Movie, which 
can be found at:

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/

For further information about these and our other posting rules, 
check out our posting guidelines at

www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin/

Thanks!

The list elves







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 19:15:30 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:15:30 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <003501c5e6eb$056fe750$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dl2qki+2ht5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142874

Sherry wrote:

>As for The death eaters
> being there, that is the time for Snape to come out of hiding and
declare
> himself to be DDM.  Not to kill his leader in a cowardly self-preserving
> act.

Sydney:

I'm sure this has been repeated ad nauseum, but one more time from the
top:

If Snape had not killed Dumbledore, he would have dropped dead from
breaking the Vow.  Then one of the Death Eaters would have killed the
wandless D-dore.  Then the DE's, including the bloodthirsty Fernir,
would have rampaged around the school, before hauling Draco back to
V-mort.  Who would then probably have killed Draco and his entire
family.  

It's possible to argue that it would have been more 'heroic' to die
from the Vow and let the chips fall where they may.  It's probaly what
Sirius would have done.  But I would say personally that it would not
exactly be an optimal choice. It's strongly implied in the text that
it's not the choice Dumbledore wanted Snape to make.

There actually is not that much room for interpretation in that scene.
 Look, Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow to complete Draco's task, ie,
killing Dumbledore, or he would die.  Fast forward to several months
later, when we have an overheard conversation:  Snape is saying he
doesn't want to do something, and Dumbledore is saying that he
promised he would do and he should do it.  Fast forward a little
further.  Harry asks D-dore if he still trusts Snape. D-dore says that
he is CERTAIN, that he TRUSTS SNAPE ABSOLUTELY.  A couple of hours
later, the weakened D-dore is asking to be taken to Snape.  When Snape
appears on the tower, Dumbledore begins IMMEDIATELY to plead with
Snape:  "Severus... please...".  He doesn't say "Severus.. thank god!
 Wait... no... Severus... please."  There is no transition at all.  No
matter how sudden or subtle, there would need to be a moment of "Yay!
 Snape" before moving into "rats!  I was wrong!"

If this is the Big Betrayal, even assuming that a by-the-book plotter
like JKR would place it so extremely oddly at the transition into the
'third act', as it were, it is simply inconceivable that she would
fail to show Dumbldore undergoing the transition from trust to
betrayal.  Especially a writer so enamoured of melodrama as Rowling! 
The alternative explanation is that she was rushed or careless, but
seeing as in her mind she must have been building up to this sequence
for ten years, it's a little hard to imagine.


>...We've been set up to believe that Snape is mean and evil
> and so to believe he isn't really.  So, to make him evil, ...it
>isn't what most people have expected.  

Reversals of expectation in fiction are not that simple.  Nobody
expects the series to end with Mrs. Figg killing Voldemort, or an
asteroid hitting the earth, but that doesn't make that the best, most
original ending.  *searches for analogy*  It's like music, right? 
Let's say you're listening to a symphony (as it's Rowling, let's say
it's a Mozart symphony) in a major key.  It will shift at various
points into the minor key, especially right around going into the big
end bit, which creates a sort of anxiety.  Then it goes back to the
major key-- it might do it in a surprising way, but it certainly
always returns to the key it established at the beginning.  The ending
is expected, the satisfaction comes in how it gets there and overcomes
the complications.  For the series to end with Dumbldore's trust being
mistaken, and Harry's hatred to be correct, it would have to have
established a 'minor-key' from the beginning, by having a dark,
noirish feeling and a cynical message.  I'm not against dark writing
at all, but HP is decidedly a major-key work.

It would not merely be surprising, it would be downright avant-garde
to end the series with an evil Snape, and JKR is not exactly an
avant-garde plotter.  

>And since Harry is the
> true hero of the books, I'd love to see him be right.

As Harry is the protagonist, it is necessary for him to CHANGE, though.

-- Sydney, who thinks evil!Snape is about as likely as an asteroid
hitting Hogwarts







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 19:48:46 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:48:46 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2qki+2ht5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2siu+ips8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142875

Sydney:
  Fast forward to several months
> later, when we have an overheard conversation:  Snape is saying he
> doesn't want to do something, and Dumbledore is saying that he
> promised he would do and he should do it. 

Alla:

Again, IMO, there are MANY intepretations of this scene,which are 
consistent with ESE! or OFH! Snape.

What Snape may not want to do that Dumbledore wants him to? First of 
all  he may not want to spy anymore OR he may not want to watch over 
Harry anymore and Dumbledore keeps insisting OR he may not want to 
teach DADA anymore, because he did not know about the curse earlier, 
but he knows now. See? :-)


Sydney:
 <SNIP>> If this is the Big Betrayal, even assuming that a by-the-
book plotter
> like JKR would place it so extremely oddly at the transition into 
the
> 'third act', as it were, it is simply inconceivable that she would
> fail to show Dumbldore undergoing the transition from trust to
> betrayal. 

Alla:

It is not inconceivable to me especially if one speculates that even 
when he saw the betrayal, Dumbledore still believed in Snape inner 
goodness ( stupid, but very Dumbledorish, if you ask me :-))

You know, Dumbledore may foresee the future and trusts that at the 
end Snape will do the right thing, or something like that. Or 
Dumbledore trusts that Snape protects Draco.


Sydney:
<SNIP>
 For the series to end with Dumbldore's trust being
> mistaken, and Harry's hatred to be correct, it would have to have
> established a 'minor-key' from the beginning, by having a dark,
> noirish feeling and a cynical message.  I'm not against dark writing
> at all, but HP is decidedly a major-key work.

Alla:

If we come back to the idea that this is a Harry story first and 
foremost, I absolutely do not see  the dark message even if Snape 
turns out to be evil or OFH. Why? Because I think it is very possible 
that Harry will forgive him or something like that and Harry's 
ability to love ( power Dark Lord knows not, but Snape knows love 
since he was loved) will force Snape to do the right thing at the end.

I am not sure why you think it would be a dark message.

Oh, and of course  the secondary message would be trust in yourself, 
not in authority figures, no matter how wise they are. I don't see 
this one as very dark one either. 

> 
> Antosha:
> My point about police officers wasn't that they weren't bound by 
the same laws; it was that 
> the AK isn't in and of itself proof of evil.


Alla:

But don't you think that there is a reason why JKR used the word 
Unforgiveable when she described those three curses? I mean, true 
unfortunately she did not define what she meant to be dark magic in 
the series in general, but it is pretty clear when those three curses 
stand, no?

I think using three curses carries a symbolic meaning and not a good 
one. Even trying to use them seems  not to be a good thing, but 
succesfully using them seems to me to be a pretty good indicator 
where the character stands . IMO of course.

Besides example with Aurors, as proof for Unforgiveables being OK, 
which as I said I am not sure about being a strong one, there is 
really nothing else in canon to support it, no?




Antosha:
<SNIP>
> I don't think Snape is a nice man or even a particularly good 
person. But I can see at least 
> the possibility that he did what he did for honorable--or, at least-
-justifyable reasons.
>


Alla:

YES, justifiable reasons I can see as wrote earlier - it does not sit 
well with me, but I can see it - as in Snape honestly thinking that 
that would be  the lesser of two evils, especially if Dumbledore is 
dying at the moment, but honorable reasons? Sorry, do not see it at 
all.


JMO obviously,

Alla










From zehms at aol.com  Fri Nov 11 19:28:57 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:28:57 EST
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
Message-ID: <36.7f034827.30a64af9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142876

Ginny343:
I'm wondering about the statement Voldemort made to Harry about, "Your 
mother needn't have died".  That seems out-of-character for Voldemort -
seeing as one of his big things is pure bloodedness (even though he 
is not).  He has obviously killed a large number of people, why on 
earth would he decide to kill James, little Harry, and spare muggle-
born Lily?  Some time ago I read various theories about this, but I 
can't imagine any reason why Voldemort would intentionally consider 
not killing Lily.  Any ideas?



szehms:
When JKR first refused to comment about the answer to the question "why not 
kill Lily?' or "Why did LV give Lily the choice to live?' I believed  some 
theories surrounding Harry's ancestory; some argued that Lily's green eyes were 
symbolic of a connection to Slytherin, perhaps she was distantly related to 
Salazar, therefore I thought perhaps LV chose to spare her as she and he shared 
the same lineage.
However, JKR quickly dispelled these theories, telling fans that Harry is 
neither an heir of Slytherin or Gryffindor, and his parents ancestory is of no 
importance to the series, and obviously with HBP we all learned that Tom Riddle 
is the last remaining heir of Slytherin.

So why let Lily live?

I am begining to think that the answer lies with Snape...... that Snape 
manipulated Voldemort to believe that Lily needn't be killed, that Snape attempted 
to save Lily's life.  This ties in neatly with my belief that Snape's 
repentence to DD is because of his feelings for Lily, that when he realized that his 
actions would bring about her death, I think he became a double agent for the 
Order.
JKR would of course be silent about this information as it would reveal too 
much about the plot she is saving for book 7, the connection between Snape and 
Lily and the reason why DD always trusted Snape.

Any other thoughts?

szehms









From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 11 19:45:54 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:45:54 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
Message-ID: <dl2sdi+th0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142877


>Sydney:
>Snape is saying he
>doesn't want to do something, and Dumbledore is saying that he
>promised he would do and he should do it. Fast forward a little
>further. Harry asks D-dore if he still trusts Snape. D-dore says 
that
>he is CERTAIN, that he TRUSTS SNAPE ABSOLUTELY

Orna:
Adding my agreement and association ? We see DD use very similar 
words, when he tells Harry, that he has to make him drink the 
potion. 
"You remember
the condition on which I brought you with me?" Harry 
hesitated
"But what if - ?" You swore, did you not, to follow any 
command I gave you?"
.Well then" said DD
." You have my orders". Etc.

So it is quite in the nature of DD and his trusted allies to have 
such conversations, when they are forced by commitment and loyalty 
to do unthinkable actions ? inflicting pain, and even death on DD. 


>-- Sydney, who thinks evil!Snape is about as likely as an asteroid
>hitting Hogwarts
 
Now we really reached the impossible, at least as long as Trelawney 
is on the divine lookout



Orna














From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 11 20:04:03 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:04:03 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <36.7f034827.30a64af9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dl2tfj+aaju@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142878

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, zehms at a... wrote:
>
> Ginny343:
> I'm wondering about the statement Voldemort made to Harry 
about, "Your 
> mother needn't have died".  That seems out-of-character for 
Voldemort -
> seeing as one of his big things is pure bloodedness (even though he 
> is not).  He has obviously killed a large number of people, why on 
> earth would he decide to kill James, little Harry, and spare muggle-
> born Lily?  Some time ago I read various theories about this, but I 
> can't imagine any reason why Voldemort would intentionally consider 
> not killing Lily.  Any ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> szehms:
<big snip>

> JKR would of course be silent about this information as it would 
reveal too 
> much about the plot she is saving for book 7, the connection 
between Snape and 
> Lily and the reason why DD always trusted Snape.
> 
> Any other thoughts?
> 
> szehms
>

colebiancardi:  If there was a Snape & Lily connection, why does DD 
tell Harry that the reason why Snape turned is not Harry's business 
to know?  I believe it was either in GoF or OotP.  Harry's parents 
ARE his business and any connections with his mother or father should 
be revealed to him.  

Maybe the reason why Voldemort stated to Harry that Lily need not 
have died is simple - he didn't need her death.  The object of 
Voldemort's desire was Harry that night - not James or Lily.  James 
was already protecting/fighting back - Voldemort got rid of him; 
James was an obstacle.  Lily was not fighting back - she was holding?
in front of? Harry.  All Voldemort wanted was that baby - to destroy 
Harry.  If Lily stepped aside, it was no skin off of LV's teeth to 
let her live.  He didn't think she was much of a threat to his power- 
and she would probably die anyway in the long run, if she continued 
to work for the Order of the Phoenix  She refused, got in the way, 
and she died.  

At any rate, why would Voldemort want to reward or give favors to his 
DE's in the matter of "love"?  Regardless if Snape's feelings for 
Lily were platonic or sexual, it is love and Voldemort doesn't 
understand it, doesn't get it, and certainly(IMHO) wouldn't reward 
any of his DE's with it. 

just doesn't make sense.  Also, LV is a liar to boot.  Perhaps he was 
lying.  And Rowling is just throwing us nothing but a chicken bone :)


colebiancardi







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 11 20:16:41 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:41 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2qki+2ht5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004701c5e6fc$d4e03e20$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142879

Sydney:

I'm sure this has been repeated ad nauseum, but one more time from the
top:

Sherry:

Yes, and my opinions have been repeated the same.  LOL.  Neither side will
ever convince the other, not till we have the final word from JKR in book
seven.  Why am I here again when I swore no more Snape argument for me?
Well, i guess I didn't make an unbreakable vow on it.  Smile.


Sydney
If Snape had not killed Dumbledore, he would have dropped dead from
breaking the Vow.  Then one of the Death Eaters would have killed the
wandless D-dore.  Then the DE's, including the bloodthirsty Fernir,
would have rampaged around the school, before hauling Draco back to
V-mort.  Who would then probably have killed Draco and his entire
family.  

Sherry:

And about that ridiculous vow.  Either Snape is evil, or he's an idiot for
entering into a vow without knowing what he was vowing to do.  He did have
an out, after all.  He tells Narcissa that if the dark lord doesn't want it
discussed, she should not discuss it.  That should certainly shut up Bella
if she protested.  If he did know the contents of the vow, if he knew what
Narcissa was going to ask, then he cannot justify that to me or to many
others here.  So, either the great heroic Snape is a damn fool, or he's
evil.  i just can't see any other reason for him entering into that vow.
Only Carol's ideas about the DADA curse--with which I agree in many
ways--could even begin to be a possible excuse for me.  And yet, as my
cousin, a recovering drug addict learned in rehab, drugs might be the
reason, but they don't excuse the action.  The DADA jinx might have put
Snape in a situation that he could not win, but that doesn't excuse him
killing Dumbledore.  


Sydney:
It's possible to argue that it would have been more 'heroic' to die
from the Vow and let the chips fall where they may.  It's probaly what
Sirius would have done.  But I would say personally that it would not
exactly be an optimal choice. It's strongly implied in the text that
it's not the choice Dumbledore wanted Snape to make.


Sherry:
To you, and other DDM Snape people, it is strongly implied in the text.  To
me the text implies that Dumbledore would not want to be murdered by someone
he trusted.  If it was a plan, it was a poor plan with Harry there to see it
and spread the word.  Anyone on the good side would be likely to shoot first
and ask questions later, if Snape tried to get in touch.  (would that be
likely to AK first and ask later?)  LOL.


Sydney
There actually is not that much room for interpretation in that scene.

sherry:
But those of us who believe in ESE or OFH Snape think the interpretation
works just as well our way.  The brilliance of JKR there by giving us one
scene that can be seen in so many different ways.  She must be rubbing her
hands together with glee!


Sydney
 Look, Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow to complete Draco's task, ie,
killing Dumbledore, or he would die.  Fast forward to several months
later, when we have an overheard conversation:  Snape is saying he
doesn't want to do something, and Dumbledore is saying that he
promised he would do and he should do it.  Fast forward a little
further.  Harry asks D-dore if he still trusts Snape. D-dore says that
he is CERTAIN, that he TRUSTS SNAPE ABSOLUTELY.  A couple of hours
later, the weakened D-dore is asking to be taken to Snape.  When Snape
appears on the tower, Dumbledore begins IMMEDIATELY to plead with
Snape:  "Severus... please...".  He doesn't say "Severus.. thank god!
 Wait... no... Severus... please."  There is no transition at all.  No
matter how sudden or subtle, there would need to be a moment of "Yay!
 Snape" before moving into "rats!  I was wrong!"


Sherry:

i've read it too.  I just disagree with your interpretation of the events.
i don't have any idea about the argument with Dumbledore, think I slept
through that part of the book.  But I think we are supposed to believe
that's what they were arguing about.  As for Dumbledore's unshakable trust,
he himself gives us the clue by telling Harry that he is capable of making
bigger mistakes than others.  Even JKR says that in her muggle Net/Leaky
Cauldron interview.  i believe that Dumbledore made one of his huge mistakes
by trusting Snape, and that Harry, whose judgment we have been set up to
doubt will be right in the end.  He *is* the hero after all.


Sydney
For the series to end with Dumbldore's trust being
mistaken, and Harry's hatred to be correct, it would have to have
established a 'minor-key' from the beginning, by having a dark,
noirish feeling and a cynical message.  

It would not merely be surprising, it would be downright avant-garde
to end the series with an evil Snape, and JKR is not exactly an
avant-garde plotter.  


As Harry is the protagonist, it is necessary for him to CHANGE, though.

-- Sydney, who thinks evil!Snape is about as likely as an asteroid
hitting Hogwarts


Sherry:
Again, it's how you interpret it.  i think an evil Snape and a right on
target all these years Harry would be highly satisfying and would be a
fantastic ending.  In fact, it's too boring to me to have Harry be wrong
again and good old Dumbledore right.  Let the asteroid fall.  i admit I
don't want Snape to be good because I think he's a rotten horrible person
and he shouldn't be seen to be good.  But putting my personal feelings
aside, I still believe an ESE or OFH Snape ending can be powerful and
exciting.  Far more than a good old Snape ending would be.  Yawn--oh here we
go again, Harry wrong; Snape pure and holy.  That would be pretty darned
dull.

Sherry
Where's someone to help me make an unbreakable vow never ever ever to
discuss Snape again?




From bob.oliver at cox.net  Fri Nov 11 20:23:28 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:23:28 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <dl2ouk+f09q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2uk0+r7uo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142880

> Alla:
> 
> I didn't interpret the narrative about this event as sympathetic or 
> even undestanding the necessity durin the war. The person who allowed 
> to use Unforgiuveables was Barty Sr., whose reign was not fair and 
> just, no?
> 
> I was not feeling that narrator aproves what Barty did at all. I 
> don't think that this is a solid support for Avada Kedavra even as 
> necessity based.
> Just my interpretation of course.



To take this discussion in a slightly different way, I was in 
Washington the other week and happened to have lunch with someone who 
was once a high-ranking criminal lawyer in the Army's Judge-Advocate 
General's (JAG) office in the Pentagon.  His specialty was prosecuting 
soldiers accused of murder, as well as preparing the prosecution for 
war crimes trials.  It turned out that he was a mild HP fan (mainly 
from reading the books to his grandchildren)and was familiar with the 
situation at the end of HBP.  Out of curiosity, I asked him how he 
would approach this situation as a military lawyer.

Now, we should be aware up front that he is openly and admittedly an 
advocate of a very particular philosophy of military law - he has come 
out of retirement to work in a non-profit group aimed at decrying 
recent trends in military law, Abu Ghraib being the thing that brought 
him back into the arena.  He also openly despises the CIA and other 
intelligence agencies and admits that one of the main purposes in his 
present activity is to argue against allowing special exceptions to the 
law for intelligence gathering and covert activities.  So, take his 
comments as coming from someone with a very open and admitted bias for 
certain kinds of legal theories.  Also take it that he was very amused 
by the question (he thinks that HP on the whole is very silly and 
really not appropriate for anyone over the age of eleven), but did try 
to answer in good faith.

In any case, given what we know about what happened on the tower (as 
opposed to what has been theorized about it), his belief was that 
conviction probability would be essentially 100%, and in fact expressed 
the belief that no experienced defense lawyer would even try to mount a 
defense on the available evidence (always assuming their isn't some 
twist like a fake AK waiting to be sprung) and would almost certainly 
plea-bargain to avoid a death penalty, which would be essentially 
guaranteed if a conviction was handed down by a military tribunal.

Okay, not surprising.  But then I asked him about the various theories 
out there.  That is, fake AK, etc.  His response was rather stern, 
saying that if Snape was indeed the proximate cause of Dumbledore's 
death, such arguments as Dumbledore dying already, etc., are irrelevant 
and constitute no legal defense.  The only possible defense he would 
allow were those put forth by Pippin.  I.E. if Dumbledore died as part 
of an accident in what was planned as an elaborate ruse not involving 
deadly force.  If Snape attempted such a ruse without Dumbledore's 
consent then the charge would probably be reduced to manslaughter.  
When I asked him whether the facts of the situation would have any 
bearing (i.e. being surrounded,wartime, greater good, etc.) his 
response was once again unequivocal, no defense.  Such factors might be 
accepted as mitigating factors in the determination of punishment, but 
not as having relevance or admissability with regard to guilt.

Then I got to the real heart of the argument: What if Dumbledore 
ordered/asked Snape to kill him as part of an intelligence/covert 
operation? His response was immediate and uncompromising -- being 
ordered to do something, even if you are a soldier, policeman, or 
member of a covert/intelligence organization, constitutes no defense in 
western or international law to performing an illegal act, which 
killing Dumbledore would most definitely be.  Once again, such a factor 
might be accepted as a mitigating circumstance when it comes to 
determination of punishment, but not certainly as having any relevance 
or bearing on the question of guilt.  He offered the opinion that, were 
we talking about an American military tribunal in any case, if Snape 
were to plea bargain to avoid the death penalty and offer the "orders" 
mitigation in the penalty phase, he would probably receive a sentence 
of twenty years in federal prison, mitigated from life without parole.

Then he said something very interesting.  He said that one of the most 
bedrock principles of western military law is that orders to violate 
the law of war (i.e. killing a non-legitimate target which Dumbledore 
would be) are themselves a crime.  Therefore, if Dumbledore did indeed 
order Snape to do that, Dumbledore would himself be charged with the 
crime of issuing an illegal order.  The fact that Dumbledore himself 
was the target would be immaterial (and indeed, he said that, Hollywood 
movies aside, hiring someone to kill you has been determined in 
precedent to be a crime).

Finally I offered the UV self-defense theory.  He got a good chuckle 
out of that one, as of course their is no such thing as a UV.  However, 
he did say there were cases where covert operatives had claimed that 
committing a crime was necessary to preserving their cover, thus 
preserving their lives.  His response was unequivocal - no defense.  
Although it is possible that such people might not be prosecuted, that 
is a political question.  Legally (and as far as he is concerned, 
morally) such claims and indeed such facts are irrelevant to guilt.  
Once again, they might be admitted for mitigation of punishment, but 
are not pertinent to the question of guilt.

So, that is the view of one military lawyer -- albeit a military lawyer 
with no great respect for JKR's work and one who does have a very 
definite philosophy about how the law applies to intelligence 
gathering/covert action.  To sum up, the only possible defense he could 
see that would result in anything less than a murder conviction was 
that the whole thing was a non-lethal ruse that went south in a big 
way.  The popular theories constitute no defense, although they might 
be allowed as mitigation of punishment once guilt is determined.  
Indeed, the most popular theory, that Dumbledore ordered/asked/begged 
Snape to kill him, not only is no defense but would very possibly 
result in the prosecution of Dumbledore for issuing an illegal order.

So for what it's worth.  But it is interesting.


Lupinlore








From Nanagose at aol.com  Fri Nov 11 20:33:15 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:33:15 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl29nt+cq6d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl2v6b+ee7j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142881

> colebiancardi:
> I'm wondering how old Lily was when she brought home this "nasty
> boy"? Was she around 11 or 12? I cannot see her doing this at an
> older age, after the pensive memory in OotP.

Christina:

How come?  I ask because when I envision a Snape-as-the-awful-boy 
scenario, I've always seen it with the two of them well into their 
teenage years.  I actually never considered the thought of Lily 
having Snape over on long holidays either- I've always thought that 
Snape came to Lily's house in some kind of distress.

> colebiancardi:
> Also, if she brought
> Snape home over the holidays for a visit, don't you think that James
> or Sirius would have noticed that? Hogwarts isn't a small school,
> but James seems to have liked Lily for a while. In fact, if Lily,
> as a Griffidor, had a close, friendly relationship with Snape, a
> Slytherin, when they were first starting out at Hogwarts, wouldn't
> that have been noticed?

Christina:

Yes, I'm sure they would have, which is one of the reasons I like the 
idea so much.  I think it would actually explain a lot, particularly 
in the "Why do Snape and James hate each other so much?" arena.  I 
personally think that Lily and Snape were friends for a time, but I'd 
even accept a scenario where they were just civil Potions partners or 
something.  Wouldn't that make James just boiling with jealousy and 
irritation, even if there was absolutely nothing going on?  I know 
that some people find the reasons we've been given so far about the 
James/Snape feud satisfactory, but I refuse to believe that James 
loathed Snape just because he "hated the Dark Arts."  There must have 
been other Slytherins to pick on- why Snape?

A lot of the time I like to shy away from fantastical theories that 
attempt to "explain" what I think is pretty obvious.  The obvious 
answer here is that James is the "awful boy."  But JKR has said 
outright that there is more to the conversation that Petunia heard 
than we know.  She mentioned Lily, but didn't name the person she was 
talking to (and even passively phrased her answer so she wouldn't 
have to).  And while there could be more to the conversation in a few 
different ways, I think this is the one that makes the most sense 
considering that the text draws attention specifically to the fact 
that Petunia doesn't use names.  I think that Snape is the most 
likely choice for a lot of reasons (which I've hashed out completely 
in the past), but primarily because we've got a lot to learn about 
Lily and we've got a lot to learn about Snape, and if book seven 
isn't going to be 900 pages long (not like I would mind if it was), 
JKR has to find some ways to hit a *lot* of birds with relatively few 
stones.

Or we could all be wrong- maybe Lily had a little fling with Dedalus 
Diggle back in the day :)

Christina







From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 11 20:57:11 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:57:11 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl2v6b+ee7j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl30j7+sk71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142882

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" <Nanagose at a...> 
wrote:
>
> > colebiancardi:
> > I'm wondering how old Lily was when she brought home this "nasty
> > boy"? Was she around 11 or 12? I cannot see her doing this at an
> > older age, after the pensive memory in OotP.
> 
> Christina:
> 
> How come?  I ask because when I envision a Snape-as-the-awful-boy 
> scenario, I've always seen it with the two of them well into their 
> teenage years.  I actually never considered the thought of Lily 
> having Snape over on long holidays either- I've always thought that 
> Snape came to Lily's house in some kind of distress.
> 

colebiancardi:
I just don't.  Because I do not buy into the theory that Snape & Lily 
ever had that type of friendship.  The reason why I put it at an 
younger age, is that younger children aren't so biased.  When one gets
into the teen years, appearances are everything.  And Snape would 
never, as friends with Lucius, et all, want to be associated with 
someone who he views as a mudblood.  And I don't think Lily would 
have been too friendly towards Snape after than pensive memory.  


> > colebiancardi:
> > Also, if she brought
> > Snape home over the holidays for a visit, don't you think that 
James
> > or Sirius would have noticed that? Hogwarts isn't a small school,
> > but James seems to have liked Lily for a while. In fact, if Lily,
> > as a Griffidor, had a close, friendly relationship with Snape, a
> > Slytherin, when they were first starting out at Hogwarts, wouldn't
> > that have been noticed?
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Yes, I'm sure they would have, which is one of the reasons I like 
the 
> idea so much.  I think it would actually explain a lot, 
particularly 
> in the "Why do Snape and James hate each other so much?" arena.  I 
> personally think that Lily and Snape were friends for a time, but 
I'd 
> even accept a scenario where they were just civil Potions partners 
or 
> something.  Wouldn't that make James just boiling with jealousy and 
> irritation, even if there was absolutely nothing going on?  I know 
> that some people find the reasons we've been given so far about the 
> James/Snape feud satisfactory, but I refuse to believe that James 
> loathed Snape just because he "hated the Dark Arts."  There must 
have 
> been other Slytherins to pick on- why Snape?

colebiancardi:
I think it was just because - Snape was not rich(as far as we can 
tell), he is ugly, greasy(even Sirius stated that Snape was a greasy 
git back in their school days), and into the dark arts openly.  Not
everything has to have some other motive.  I don't care for the Lily
theory and never will, even if Rowling uses it.  Why does Draco pick 
on Harry so much?  Is Draco in love with Hermione or Ginny?  I doubt 
it. He does it because he hates Harry, from day one.  That is how I 
view James and Snape's relationship - they hated each other on 
sight.  Pure and simple.  And we DO know that James & Sirius picked 
on other people - the detention records prove that.  


<big snip>

> I think that Snape is the most 
> likely choice for a lot of reasons (which I've hashed out 
completely 
> in the past), but primarily because we've got a lot to learn about 
> Lily and we've got a lot to learn about Snape, and if book seven 
> isn't going to be 900 pages long (not like I would mind if it was), 
> JKR has to find some ways to hit a *lot* of birds with relatively 
few 
> stones.

colebiancardi:
And quite frankly, she brings up this little gem of a theory, and
all the children in the world will go EWWWW as well as a lot of 
adults. It will also open up more questions that Rowling won't be 
able to answer in the last book, I am sure.  James is the awful boy, 
IMO - Petunia hates all wizards, so awful doesn't mean ugly or nasty 
or greasy - just that the boy was a wizard.  It makes more sense for 
Lily to be friendly with James in the 6 & 7th year, as James was 
cleaning up his act for her.  

> 
> Or we could all be wrong- maybe Lily had a little fling with 
Dedalus 
> Diggle back in the day :)
> 

colebiancardi:  Now THAT'S a thought :)  









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 21:01:55 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:01:55 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2qki+2ht5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl30s3+6rv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142883

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

> If this is the Big Betrayal, even assuming that a by-the-book 
> plotter like JKR would place it so extremely oddly at the 
> transition into the 'third act', as it were, it is simply 
> inconceivable that she would fail to show Dumbldore undergoing the 
> transition from trust to betrayal.  Especially a writer so 
> enamoured of melodrama as Rowling! 

Why not?  It's the big BANG at the end of the book, setting up the 
Secunda Parte.  Anyways, she's not as interested in showing this re: 
Dumbledore, but far more interested in showing it re: Harry--being as 
she's interested in showing everything re: Harry.

> It's like music, right? 

Ooh, musical analogies.  My speciality...

> Let's say you're listening to a symphony (as it's Rowling, let's say
> it's a Mozart symphony) in a major key.  It will shift at various
> points into the minor key, especially right around going into the 
> big end bit, which creates a sort of anxiety.  Then it goes back to 
> the major key-- it might do it in a surprising way, but it certainly
> always returns to the key it established at the beginning.  The 
> ending is expected, the satisfaction comes in how it gets there and 
> overcomes the complications.  For the series to end with 
> Dumbldore's trust being mistaken, and Harry's hatred to be correct, 
> it would have to have established a 'minor-key' from the beginning, 
> by having a dark, noirish feeling and a cynical message.  I'm not 
> against dark writing at all, but HP is decidedly a major-key work.

I don't think Mozart is the best analogy for Rowling, because Mozart 
is not a genre bender in the symphony (while Rowling is at least 
playing with the combinations of genre, enough to scramble our 
expectations.)  Many of the large-scale expectations in Mozart are 
absolutely normative--and this is what you're arguing with the key 
structure.  *Of course* in the classical period you're going to end a 
work in the same key which you begin, and there's a malleable set of 
schematics something can follow.  (Key structure is not normative, 
but there's a set of possibilities.)

I don't buy the association of Dumbledore's trust with the major-key 
ending.  In fact, let me offer a counter-association in terms of key 
structure.  Harry's ultimate victory, and his realization that he can 
and must rely upon his *own* judgement as opposed to being 
Dumbledore's parrot ("I believe in DD and don't need to hear reasons 
for myself") brings us back not to the key of the first movement, but 
a breakthrough modulation--we end not where we begin, but we have 
reached a distant key via an interesting path.

Our prediction records speak pretty bluntly against the idea that 
Rowling is going to end in the same key that she began in, after 
all.  With a few scattered exceptions, most of us are guessing 
details quite badly.  And who knows whether Harry will live or die?

> As Harry is the protagonist, it is necessary for him to CHANGE, 
> though.

'Change' and 'being wrong about Snape' are not necessary correlates.  
Harry could well be absolutely right about Snape--but have to not go 
for the vengeance he currently has his mind set on.  If Harry gets 
the moment of grace at the end of the opera (wait, I don't care for 
that reading of the Countess at all...), then he's changed--but he's 
still right.

-Nora thinks of Rowling as a little closer to Bruckner: love those 
breakthrough modulations, but not always the best hand with tight 
clean structure







From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 21:07:53 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:07:53 -0000
Subject: More talented friends and other questions
Message-ID: <dl3179+nc0u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142884

Okay, I have a thought, and then about a thousand questions . . . 

"He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple 
combination of sheer luck and more talented friends.  He is mediocre 
to the last degree . . . "

I have considered for a long time that ONE reason Snape is bad to 
Harry is for Malfoy and the other Slytherins' benefit.  Malfoy going 
home and telling his dad how awful Snape is to Harry and how poor 
Harry's skills are, must earn Snape points with this DE family 
(assuming Narcissa is a DE) and give them a feeling that Harry is 
not so big of a problem.  

So, is Snape also telling LV that Harry is mediocre and gets out of 
situations by luck and more talented friends?  

-Wouldn't this make LV take Harry less seriously than if Snape was 
telling LV that Harry is growing to be a skilled wizard?  I wonder 
what Snape REALLY thinks?  

-Who exactly are the more talented friend"s"?  Obviously Hermione is 
very talented.  But who else?  Ron helped in PS with the chess game, 
and I think we all hope to see him use his logic/battle skills in 
the future, but how else have we seen him "talented"?  It seems his 
study skills are as bad, possible worse, than Harry's.  Thinking 
about the people in the DA and those fighting with him at the MoM.  
Maybe Ginny, we don't know much about her skills.  But Luna?  
Neville?   If anything, we could say he has gotten out of most his 
serious situations with luck and help from Hermione and DD.  

-Is this statement putting in danger Harry's close friends, who LV 
might be seeing as future threats.

Other questions:
Does Snape walk around 24/7 practicing occlumency?  In PS/SS, when 
Harry was with Quirrel/LV in front of the mirror, LV stated that 
Harry was lying, even before Quirrel took off the turban.  Was he 
just guessing?  Was LV able to practice legilimency that whole year 
when he was part of Quirrel? 

Does Snape know about the horcruxes?  Is it possible that he was the 
one who first told DD about LV having a horcrux?  Obviously RAB knew 
he had one, so maybe Snape did too?  This would mean Snape would 
feel confident that LV would be able to come back.  This could keep 
him on guard and working at Hogwarts for all those years.  Whether 
Snape is evil or not, I don't think he truly wanted LV to return.  I 
think he, Lucius and some of the other DEs have their own agendas 
and were privately relieved when LV disappeared and they were not 
thrown in Azkaban.

On the other hand, what exactly was Lucius trying to accomplish when 
he gave Ginny Riddle's diary?  Did he know what it would do?  Did he 
just want to open the chamber and get people killed or was he 
looking for a way to get LV revived?  Did Lucius know it was a 
horcrux?

So many questions . . . :) I had better stop there.  

Ginny343







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 11 21:15:10 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:15:10 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <dl0d69+q4bk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl31ku+tlt3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142885

> >femmevitale: 
> >So the parallel then is between Merope and Lily. Merope is a
> >mother who chose (in LV's eyes) to be selfish and die instead of
> >live for her son. Lily is a woman who chose to be selfless and
> >die for her son instead of save her own life. It is the choices
> >that their mothers made which make Harry and LV diametric
> >opposites.

> Orna:
> My understanding of what's going on there is that Voldermort is 
> driven by something deeper than he knows. When he says that his 
> mother couldn't be magic, I think he says, his mother couldn't
> have loved him. That's where Harry feels pity for him. Now what
> would he do? He can either tell himself, that something was wrong
> with him, not being able to elicit his mother's "magic". Or tell
> himself, that that's the way mothers are ? selfish and not loving. 

Jen: I read Riddle's thoughts upon learning Merope died as somewhat 
removed from any personal connection. Instead of perhaps 
internalizing his mom's death as being his fault, or externalizing 
it and blaming her, he chose instead to focus on the power of magic, 
his obsession and downfall. His interpretation was that magic gives 
one the ultimate power to defeat even death, and therefore his mom 
could not be magical. Even if he was covering up for deep hurt (and 
by then I think his ability to feel such a thing was almost 
completely removed) it was buried quite far below any concious 
thought.

femmevitale:
> This is the first time in Tom's life where he equates dying with
> being anti-magical. Harry ponders the fact that Merope wouldn't
> even save herself for her son. This is the first time that Harry
> unwittingly feels pity for LV. 

Jen: Now this is a really interesting thought here, femmevitale. I 
wonder if there was an event that really cemented Harry's core-
strength of compassion, just as there was a pivotal event that 
shaped Riddle's obsession with immortality? Whether there was one 
event for Harry or not, the two boys certainly intepreted their 
mom's dying in extremely different ways.

Orna:
> When he tells Lily to step aside...<snipping> on some deeper
> level, he challenges his belief ? because he puts it to a test. He
> sneers at her as a silly girl, and devaluates her act, but still ?
> the scene is set. And when Lily acts like a real loving mother
> would act, I think, that's when his power brakes in some way ? 
> something is shattered inside him. Not surprisingly, although he
> knows a lot of magic, he forgets that this love leaves a magic 
> protection. Voldermort being what he is, he plays it down, but the
> importance of it seems to have penetrated him in some way ? that's
> why he tells Harry, that she didn't have to die. All MHO.

Jen: Oh, how I love this idea! Voldemort *would* have learned the 
power of love magic if it happened this way, a crack in his core 
belief that dark magic is always more powerful than love magic. And 
I take it you are saying there was a magical consequence for that as 
well? Perhaps some weakness that will help bring him down later on?

femmevitale:
> Or, LV could have had a special purpose for Lily (who we know was 
> immensely talented in charms & potions). Or, a truly evil LV 
> wanted Lily to watch her child being killed. Yet it struck me 
> that LV once said to Harry, "Your mother needn't have died." It's 
> almost as if he is saying it to himself. I think the answer to
> this will be the key to Harry's ability to destroy LV.

Jen: It was an interesting choice of words. Voldemort couldn't 
understand Lily's choice, it's the antithesis of everything he 
believes in to sacrifice yourself for love. Undoutedly he thought 
her a fool, but we don't *know* what happened at Godric's Hollow 
that night. I've often wondered about the moment right after 
Voldemort killed Lily--what did he do? Did he immediately AK Harry, 
did staring at an unarmed baby give him any pause at all or was it 
just 'whoosh' and the events transpired? It's so hard to fathom, but 
he probably didn't give it a second thought. Which makes it all the 
more interesting *why* he offered to spare Lily.

Jen






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov 11 21:26:11 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:26:11 -0000
Subject: W.A.F.F.L.E.S. and the Dursleys; a few rambling thoughts
Message-ID: <dl329j+j8fi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142886

Geoff:
I have been mulling over writing a post such as this for a day or two 
and have finally decided to launch out. My thinking was triggered 
partly by the Dumbledore etiquette threads and also by a couple of 
posts.

ellecain wrote in message 142574:

"Anyway, while I love the thought provoking posts by the more 
intelligent list members, I think it necessary to allow for some 
humorous respite among them. We cant be serious all the time can we? 
So with a view to promoting this sort of capricious jocular posting 
behaviour I have taken the liberty of giving it a title.

I propose that this sort of thing be called W.A.F.F.L.E.S. the 
translation of which is:
Whimsical Adventure of Fanciful Frivolity, Lighthearted but 
Entertaining Speculation"

And Bart Lidofsky wrote in message142837:

"It's been said that the novels have a great deal of breadth, but not 
a lot of depth. They are in an incredibly detailed world, but most of 
the characters lack complexity; they have quirks which stand in 
forpersonality. But still, reading the novels is very much like 
playing a game; each novel has a mystery, which is solved by the time 
you havefinished the novel. But there are a number of series-wide 
mysteries, and, as we read the books, we learn the rules, and can 
play the game.

And the game is fun."

If I look at my reading habits from childhood, I have always tended 
to opt for books which needed my "willing suspension of disbelief" in 
order to enjoy them. When I was 8 or 9, I was avidly reading Hugh 
Lofting's "Doctor Dolittle" series, accepting quite happily that the 
animals could hold sensible conversations with the doctor within the 
parameters of that world. As a pre-teen, I vicariously visited Venus 
with the Dan Dare strip in the "Eagle" comic and, in later years, 
Alan Garner's books, LOTR, Star Trek ? all of which demanded that I 
accept something outside the real world.

Looking at a current thread title, "Why do you read the HP books?"

When the books first came out, I allowed myself to be influenced by 
some of the folk in my church for whom the Harry Potter books were 
a "Bad Thing" and for several years ignored their existence. Then, by 
chance, I went to see "Chamber of Secrets" at the end of 2002 and, 
immediately afterwards, watched "Philosopher's Stone" on satellite 
TV. I bought the books and was hooked. As a side issue, my opinion is 
that the books are excellent for bringing out certain aspects of 
Christian teaching and I have frequently used the books to help with 
informal discussions with young people at my church (we're all going 
off next Friday as a group to see GOF).

Bur for me, to lose myself in books or films such as I have mentioned 
is great fun and here I find myself fervently nodding in agreement 
with ellecain and bart. We should be enjoying our alternative 
universes and letting that spill over into our interchanges of ideas 
on this group.

But I have felt increasingly aware for some time that the tone of the 
group has changed. There seem to be a number of contributors who seem 
to be blurring the lines between the real world and Harry's world by 
treating some of the events and topics of the books as being as 
serious as the news in of today's world. 

Ever since HBP landed in July, there have been long threads dealing 
with Snape and Horcruxes, to mention but two, and dealing with them 
with intense seriousness. We have seen  several threads of the type 
which I have been credited with calling "tennis match threads" ? Yes 
you can/No you can't arguments being repeated ad infinitum and ad 
nauseam. And also, perhaps more worryingly to me, there has been an 
increase in bad-tempered or grumpy replies, often from people who 
will only see their own point of view and snarl at those who do not 
subscribe to the same conclusion.

Which leads me to the Dursleys. 

Many writers have introduced characters into their books who verge on 
caricature and I think that readers are expected to recognise them as 
such. Roald Dahl had several; Dickens created Bumble the beadle in 
Oliver Twist along these lines while Shakespeare also introduced 
comic characters to amuse the groundlings ? Dogberry in "Much Ado 
About Nothing" springs to mind.

And sometimes the funniest are those who are social climbers who try 
to project the image that they are a cut above the rest. Group 
members in the UK will probably be familiar with Hyacinth Bucket in 
the TV series "Keeping up Appearances".

If I maybe allowed to refer to the "medium that dare not speak its 
name", on the DVD of "Chamber of Secrets", there are interviews with 
most of the main characters and Fiona Shaw ? Petunia Dursley in the 
film ? comments:
"The extraordinary thing about the Dursleys is that they are very 
funny because they are very recognisable social aspirers and full of 
that kind of dogged low-ceiling imagination which means that they 
can't see beyond their material dreams. But, of course, that is what 
most people are like."

One of the things about fiction like that which I have mentioned is 
that folk, including children, usually recognise and accept that we 
are not in a real situation. What happens is determined by the 
internal rules of the world created by the writer. Hence, there is 
often a comeuppance for these characters designed to meet the 
anticipated desire of a reader to see them knocked off their perches. 
And so it is with Vernon and Petunia. I believe that JKR wrote this 
chapter so that we could have an opportunity to see them chastened; 
whether we should then be beating our breasts about the enormity of 
Dumbledore's actions or remembering that this /is/ just a work of 
fiction is up to our individual interpretations but I personally 
believe that some of us here are getting too serious for the good of 
our sense of humour!

While writing this, my mind went to the end of the film "Star Trek: 
Insurrection"  where Artim, the young Baku boy, says to Data:
"Don't forget ? you have some little fun every day."

If that's good advice for an android, it's good advice for those of 
us on HPFGU. 
:-)









From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 21:38:06 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:38:06 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl2tfj+aaju@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl32vu+kbqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142887

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> 
wrote:
>
> Maybe the reason why Voldemort stated to Harry that Lily need not 
> have died is simple - he didn't need her death.  

I don't know how many people LV has killed, but he has had armies of 
Inferi . . . He has already gone so far into evil, why would he care 
how many people he kills?  Why would he even pause to consider not 
killing her?

> 
> Also, LV is a liar to boot.  Perhaps he was 
> lying.  And Rowling is just throwing us nothing but a chicken 
bone :)
> 

I assumed this too, until recently rereading PoA.  When Harry is 
first practicing the patronus he hears this as a memory from the 
night his parents died:

"Not Harry!  Not Harry!  Please -- I'll do anything --"
"Stand aside.  Stand aside, girl!"

So LV was not lying. He told her to move.  He wasted valuable 
seconds of his life asking a witch he had no respect for to move.  
Why?


Ginny343






From kjones at telus.net  Fri Nov 11 21:44:03 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:44:03 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <004701c5e6fc$d4e03e20$0400a8c0@pensive>
References: <004701c5e6fc$d4e03e20$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <437510A3.8060804@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142888


> Sherry:
  I believe that Dumbledore made one of his huge mistakes
> by trusting Snape, and that Harry, whose judgment we have been set up to
> doubt will be right in the end.  He *is* the hero after all.

KJ writes:

    Now this interests me. In the first book, Harry, bumbling along, 
with the help of his friends, is the clear *hero*.
    In the second book, Harry is also the clear *hero*, but with 
Fawkes's help. Without Fawkes Harry would have been killed. End of series.
    In the third book, Harry would not have carried the day without 
Hermione. Harry did not have the time turner, or the maturity to 
restrain himself from changing the past, or the patience to think 
through what had to be done. He was also not sufficiently aware of what 
went on around him to be able to determine the exact point of time he 
was in, and what would be happening next, in order to insert himself 
into the correct point in time to affect a change. All he really did was 
cast a Patronus, which allowed Hermione to pull it off. He was much less 
of a *hero* and very nearly an impediment.
    In the fourth book, Harry is completely a pawn,pushed and pulled in 
all directions, getting through the tasks with the help of at least four 
characters. He survived Voldemort through sheer luck and one of the few 
things he allowed himself to learn from Snape. The only "heroic" thing 
he did was to keep his promise to Cedric and return his body to his 
parents. In this book, his decision freed Peter Petigrew, to restore 
Voldemort. Way to go Harry!
    In the fifth book, Harry is a complete mess, and his lack of 
self-restraint, refusal to learn anything from Snape, resentment of DD, 
and general angst resulted in the death of his godfather. There was no 
Harry *the hero* in OotP. Hermione started the DADA, charmed the coins, 
got rid of Umbridge, and was remembered by Grawp. Luna came up with the 
thestrals. The best Harry could pull off in this book was to provide the 
information that saved the life of Arthur Weasly at what he felt was 
risk to his own credibility.
    In the HBP Harry managed to zero in on the Draco problem fairly 
early in the game, but without the committed help from his friends who 
had romance on the mind, he was helpless. In this book, his major 
contribution to events was to pour poison down DD's gullet at his 
command. He really could have asked DD a number of questions about what 
the result might be before doing so. If DD had been killed on the spot, 
Harry would not have made it passed the inferi to get out. The point of 
this book seems to be to emphasize the fact of Harry's complete 
helplessness in the face of the events unfolding around him, which I 
suppose is necessary to increase the drama of the last book. Harry does 
not even see the heroism of the people around him. Lupin is risking life 
and limb to try to improve the werewolf situation, the Weasleys continue 
to make targets of themselves to support Dumbledore, Tonks and 
Shacklebolt risk their jobs and probably Azkaban to support the Order, 
and then there is Snape (but let's not go there)and Dumbledore gave up 
his health and life to fight Voldemort.
    The point to all this is that, in my opinion, while the books are 
from Harry's point of view, which make him the key character, they do 
not necessarily make him the *hero*.
KJ




From rbeache at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 11 21:54:24 2005
From: rbeache at earthlink.net (Rachel Ellington)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:54:24 -0500
Subject: Retrospective - Snape's Worst Memory
References: <1131696560.3864.63666.m7@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c5e70a$7b2f8c10$6501a8c0@IBME69E742C294>

No: HPFGUIDX 142889

Goddlefrood said:
I contend that Snape discontinuing 
Harry's Occlumency lessons is in fact Snape's worst memory.

RE says:
 My idea on "The Worst Memory" is that it is actually Harry's worst memory, not Snape's.  Although it is not tecnically Harry's memory it is a memory and thus far, has been the worst one he has experienced about his parents. I realize that hearing his screaming mother while LV tries to kill Harry would seemingly be the worst, but from Harry's point of view, Snape's memeory challenges his very notion of who his parents are and their nature.  Harry has bouyed himself since age 11 with the core belief that his parents were not just good, but great people.  This memory shakes Harry to that core, hence the WORST memory for Harry.  

RE
presenting a much more straighforward read on that one! But I do so love the creative explanations offered up.





From kjones at telus.net  Fri Nov 11 22:02:34 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:02:34 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What saved Harry?
In-Reply-To: <dl31ku+tlt3@eGroups.com>
References: <dl31ku+tlt3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437514FA.6080803@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142890


> Jen: Oh, how I love this idea! Voldemort *would* have learned the
> power of love magic if it happened this way, a crack in his core
> belief that dark magic is always more powerful than love magic. And
> I take it you are saying there was a magical consequence for that as
> well? Perhaps some weakness that will help bring him down later on?

KJ writes:
     This is an interesting suggestion and may have something to do with 
the ending along with the fact that he is now sharing blood with Harry. 
This must have some kind of effect for Dumbledore to be pleased over it. 
He is also composed of flesh from an individual who owes Harry a life 
debt, and an old mouldering bone of a muggle father who hated him even 
before he was born. To add insult to injury, Voldemort has to lock Harry 
out of his mind or he knows everything that is going on. Even his own 
mind is not his alone anymore. Most of his supporters are either nuts as 
well or somewhat lacking in enthusiasm. None of this bodes well for 
Voldemort's continued health or longevity.
KJ





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 11 22:07:29 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:07:29 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2siu+ips8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl34n1+35dg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142891

> Sydney:
>  <SNIP>> If this is the Big Betrayal, even assuming that a by-the-
> book plotter like JKR would place it so extremely oddly at the
> transition into the 'third act', as it were, it is simply 
> inconceivable that she would fail to show Dumbldore undergoing the
> transition from trust to betrayal. 
 
> Alla:
> It is not inconceivable to me especially if one speculates that
> even when he saw the betrayal, Dumbledore still believed in Snape
> inner goodness ( stupid, but very Dumbledorish, if you ask me :-))
> 
> You know, Dumbledore may foresee the future and trusts that at the 
> end Snape will do the right thing, or something like that. Or 
> Dumbledore trusts that Snape protects Draco.

Jen: You know, gut instinct aside about the tower scene, I've been 
thinking about another Snape option, Grey!Snape lets call him, in 
honor of his underpants. 

The idea of Dumbledore trusting in Snape's ultimate goodness is the 
key to this guy. Dumbledore doesn't completely trust Snape the DE, 
the man who joined Voldemort, but he does trust Severus Snape, his 
former student and the person who turned from Voldemort for some 
still partially shrouded reason.

So Dumbledore does keep him from the DADA job, knowing the curse may 
wreak havoc on their precariously balanced faith in each other and 
he tries for sixteen long years to nurture the part of Snape that is 
still good. He tries to bolster other people's belief in Severus, 
hoping his faith in him and his goodness will win out.

But Snape is vulnerable, he's morally weak, and even Dumbledore's 
faith can't protect him from himself. He is his own worst enemy in 
cliched terms. A combination of the DADA curse and his weakness 
bring him down by first taking the UV, and then following the course 
through to its logical end.

And Dumbledore, on the tower, does realize that he's asked too much 
from someone once again, that his belief did not the man make. BUT, 
he still believes even if Snape kills him and saves himself, Snape 
does want Voldemort gone and cares for Draco as much as he is 
capable of. So the pleading was not 'you must kill me' or 'you must 
not kill me' but 'you must follow our plans through to conclusion, 
you must help Harry defeat Voldemort, you are capable of this 
whatever the personal price'. You know, in a nutshell ;).

And Snape *will* do the right thing in the end, Dumbledore's faith 
in him will prove to be true, that he is capable of being faced with 
temptation and won't try to 'slither out' at a pivotal moment.

I like this scenario because OFH!Snape has always lacked a motive 
for me and DDM!Snape is hard because of the UV and well, that minor 
problem of explaining why he killed Dumbeldore. I do lean toward DDM 
still, but can conceive of a more multi-faceted character, one who 
does truly switch sides, gives in to temptation again, and finally 
finds the strength inside through his *own* belief, not just 
Dumbledore believing in him when he didn't believe in himself (i.e. 
the forest argument).

Jen, who enjoyed Lupinlore's military legality post immensely while 
sighing with relief that we probably won't be subjected to Rowling 
delving into a legal battle over Snape's case.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 22:31:31 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:31:31 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse /Blood magic v Love magic
In-Reply-To: <dl2luc+jbck@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3643+jv3o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142892

 
> Jen: There's a symbolic factor at work, though, in the protection. 
> Love magic is different from just feeling love. Love magic is love-
> made-manifest and in this case, residing in Harry's skin. 

a_svirn:
I daresay. But should it be this different? This is the question 
that really bothers me. All the other examples of the "higher" magic 
that metaphorically, symbolically etc represent essential human 
relationships are pretty straightforward in this respect.  Fidelius 
charm can only work if you are loyal. If you are not it fails. We 
don't know how precisely the life debt thing works, but I have a 
hunch that the obligation exists only if you recognise it. The magic 
of the Unbreakable Vow can only be invoked if you are making a 
commitment, etc. And yet with Love the most important of all things 
muggle and magical "just feeling love" suddenly becomes less 
important, than being a blood relation. 

> Jen: When 
> Dumbledore placed the charm and asked Petunia to seal it, he was 
> asking for her compassion as much as her blood. He was asking her 
to 
> give Lily's love for Harry a chance to grow and protect him as 
long 
> as possible (even if Petunia felt no love for Harry herself). 

a_svirn:
Well, he may have asked for compassion (which, incidentally, is not 
quite the same thing as love), but he, and more to the point, Harry 
never got it. We've seen enough of the Dursleys to be able to state 
it with a great degree of certainty. And Dumbledore himself 
acknowledged it in his little speech; he said that they had not done 
as he asked, and that Harry had never knew anything but neglect and 
cruelty at their hands.










From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 22:33:35 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:33:35 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl30s3+6rv9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl367v+q306@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142893


>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
> 
> > If this is the Big Betrayal, even assuming that a by-the-book 
> > plotter like JKR would place it so extremely oddly at the 
> > transition into the 'third act',
> 

Nora:
> Why not?  It's the big BANG at the end of the book, setting up the 
> Secunda Parte.  

The "is Snape a goodie or a baddie" theme has been a reliable tension
point for the entire series.  You would either tie it up in the climax
of the series proper, or you would tie it up well in advance so you
have time to introduce a new question.  At the end of the 2rd act you
generally just blow stuff up real good, or kill someone, because your
concern is momentum. It's a bad place to put a period on a question
mark, if you will.  It's like having Rick decide not to go with Ilsa
before they get the thing with the passes sorted-- it would suck the
energy out of the narrative drive.

>Anyways, she's not as interested in showing this re: 
> Dumbledore, but far more interested in showing it re: Harry--being as 
> she's interested in showing everything re: Harry.

Soooo, she would just leave out the bit where Dumbledore realized the
guy he trusted so profoundly is Evil.  Right.  

The essential point is, that I think almost anyone would agree that
the scene is at the very least ambiguous (if you think only a lunatic
would see it that way, well, why are you arguing with lunatics? :)). 
 All it would have taken to remove all ambiguity from that scene is
ONE LINE from Dumbledore, one closeup where he absorbs his betrayal. 
JKR deliberately left it ambiguous.  Meaning Snape's loyalties are
still to be resolved.

> I don't think Mozart is the best analogy for Rowling, because Mozart 
> is not a genre bender in the symphony (while Rowling is at least 
> playing with the combinations of genre, enough to scramble our 
> expectations.) 

?  JKR is COMBINES genres, but she doesn't break them.  Insofar as
they're mysteries, the red-herring suspect isn't guilty and the Truth
is Revealed in the final twist.  In so far as they're school stories,
the bully is an upper-class twit and somehow there are never any
competent adults to deal with the smugglers.  In so far as they're
romances, the bickering couple are Perfect for Each Other.  I can't
think of a writer that adheres to genre conventions as faithfully as
Rowling. If Harry and the Gang wind up going out to Dodge City in Book
7, I'd bet my boots there would be a shootout on Main Street at noon.


> I don't buy the association of Dumbledore's trust with the major-key 
> ending.  In fact, let me offer a counter-association in terms of key 
> structure.  Harry's ultimate victory, and his realization that he can 
> and must rely upon his *own* judgement as opposed to being 
> Dumbledore's parrot ("I believe in DD and don't need to hear reasons 
> for myself") brings us back not to the key of the first movement, but 
> a breakthrough modulation--we end not where we begin, but we have 
> reached a distant key via an interesting path.

But Harry relying on his own judgement hasn't been a question mark. 
He's been pretty alarmingly independent since book 1.  He never said,
like Lupin, Dumbledore trusts Snape and that's good enough for me. 
There is no modulation there.  If anything, there's been a theme of
Harry not relying sufficiently on other people.

This isn't a moral question.  I'd be totally up for a book that was
about Our Hero being too trusting, and going against his better
judgement and putting his fate into the hands of that baddie, and then
the baddie turns out to be really bad, and Our Hero needs learn to
trust his instincts.  That sounds like a great pitch.  But here's a
bad pitch:  very independent hero never really trusted that shifty
guy;  shifty guy turns out to be evil; hero magnanimously forgives
shifty guy.  How is that a story?  A, the hero doesn't go anywhere,
and B, the forgiveness angle doesn't pay off the trust angle.  


> Our prediction records speak pretty bluntly against the idea that 
> Rowling is going to end in the same key that she began in, after 
> all.  With a few scattered exceptions, most of us are guessing 
> details quite badly. 

Speak for yourself, my dear ;).  I predicted for book 6:  love potion
hijinks, Ron and Hermionie hooking up, moving forward the Harry/Ginny
plot, Dumbledore dying, and something happening to amp up the
suspicion on Snape-- probably this would be combined with the D-dore
dying.  Story analysis is my business. 

> And who knows whether Harry will live or die?

Harry will die in some unusual/incomplete fashion, and come back to
life.  A land-of-the-dead sequence is de-rigeur for this sort of story.

> 'Change' and 'being wrong about Snape' are not necessary correlates.  
> Harry could well be absolutely right about Snape--but have to not go 
> for the vengeance he currently has his mind set on. 

But that hasn't been what has been set up as the 'question mark' in
that relationship.  The emphasis has never been on Harry wanting to
punish Snape, which is what would be required for 'Harry forgives
Snape' to be a resolution (Draco, maybe?).  The question mark in the
relationship is Harry trusting Snape.  The theme of Harry
misinterpreting Snape's actions was introduced in Book 1-- Harry
thought Snape was trying to kill him, when he was trying to save him.
 In book 3, Harry thinks Snape is trying to poison Lupin, when he is
in fact making him medicine.  Every book has had a scene of Harry NOT
TRUSTING Snape.  The unanswered question, which Harry has pointed
asked and tantilizingly gotten no answer, is 'Why does D-dore trust
Snape'?  Trust is the key word that is used again and again, and trust
is what the resolution must involve.  The vengeance idea is not, if I
may use a musical metaphor, a note that belongs in this chord.


> -Nora thinks of Rowling as a little closer to Bruckner: love those 
> breakthrough modulations, but not always the best hand with tight 
> clean structure

--Sydney, who thinks mabye Rossini?  Sometimes repeats her favorite
themes to the point of tiresomess, and the stitching might show a
little, but one really fabulous ensemble bit and all is forgiven.







From zehms at aol.com  Fri Nov 11 19:17:39 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:17:39 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not kill Lily?
Message-ID: <196.4b7f23d5.30a64853@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142894

In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:38:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
va32h at comcast.net writes:
Well, I think Voldemort is a pragmatic killer, not a wanton one. With the exception of his father and grandparents - which were indeed sadistic, vengeance murders, Voldemort seems to have limited his personal murders to those whom he really does need to kill in order to further his plans. Bertha Jorkins, Cedric, Frank Bryce, Hepzibah Smith. 

Certainly, Voldemort is cold and heartless when he performs these 
murders - but that is not quite the same as someone like Bellatrix, or Fenrir, who clearly take pleasure in torturing and killing others. 

Voldemort wanted to kill Harry - he had to kill James because James 
got in his way. If Lily got out of the way, she'd be spared. (I also 
wondered, briefly, if Voldemort just wanted to make sure he killed one of Harry's parents, so they couldn't have another baby "born as the 7th month dies, to parents who have thrice defied him".)

Notice that once Lily is in fact, in the way, Voldemort dispatches her at once. 


szehms:
If this was the reason for giving Lily a 'choice' then why wouldn't JKR tell fans that the 'choice' was not of consequence?

JKR will tell fans when theories are off the mark, when asked she will not lie or purposefully confuse us, she will tell us that a theory is without merit or she won't comment, therefore her "no comments" tell fans that they are onto something important.

In the Mugglenet interview and in other interviews, fans have asked, why was Lily given this unique opportunity to "stand aside", why was Lily allowed to live?  JKR tells Emmerson and Melissa that she cannot comment as to the reason for the choice....therefore, the choice is an important clue whose answer reveals too much of the mystery surrounding book 7.

SO I must conclude that the answer to the question 'why not Lily?' is not as simple as you have stated, were it just that Lily was inconsequential, I think JKR would have said as much.

The fact that JKR evades this question leads me to believe that Lily was of some importance to Voldemort, I am inclined to believe that LV may have been convinced to spare her life by Snape.  JKR would not reveal this detail as the mystery surrounding Snape and Lily's connection is one of the great mysteries that IMO will be revealed in book 7.

szehms







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 22:59:56 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:59:56 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl34n1+35dg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl37pc+a4r5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142895


> 
> Jen: You know, gut instinct aside about the tower scene, I've been 
> thinking about another Snape option, Grey!Snape lets call him, in 
> honor of his underpants. 
> 
> The idea of Dumbledore trusting in Snape's ultimate goodness is the 
> key to this guy. Dumbledore doesn't completely trust Snape the DE, 
> the man who joined Voldemort, but he does trust Severus Snape, his 
> former student and the person who turned from Voldemort for some 
> still partially shrouded reason.
 [SNIP explanation that is so concise, I couldn't find any extraneous
stuff to cut!]
> 
> I like this scenario because OFH!Snape has always lacked a motive 
> for me and DDM!Snape is hard because of the UV and well, that minor 
> problem of explaining why he killed Dumbeldore. I do lean toward DDM 
> still, but can conceive of a more multi-faceted character, one who 
> does truly switch sides, gives in to temptation again, and finally 
> finds the strength inside through his *own* belief, not just 
> Dumbledore believing in him when he didn't believe in himself (i.e. 
> the forest argument).

Sydney:

There's two issues with OFH! or Grey Snape, one major and one minor. 
The minor one is that Dumbledore would pretty much have to be lying
when he says "I am certain.  I trust Severus Snape absolutely", when
what he means is "you know, so long as I have total control over him,
he's okay, I mean, I hope he's okay, but let me tell you, off the
leash he's pretty iffy".  "Absolute trust" is not a phrase with a lot
of wiggle room.

The larger objection is a wavering, agonizing, side-switching Snape is
just such a massive focus-puller.  It would make Snape, not Harry,
making all the critical choices and going through the most interesting
 emotions at the end of the book.  Story-wise I'm much happier having
Snape running down a pretty clear, straightforward track, and Harry
doing all the mind-changing.  For this reason I would prefer
Evil!Snape to conflicted!Snape, because much as I'd rather read a book
about Snape, this ain't it.  






From lealess at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 23:05:51 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:05:51 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <dl2uk0+r7uo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl384f+dp4i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142896

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> Then I got to the real heart of the argument: What if Dumbledore 
> ordered/asked Snape to kill him as part of an intelligence/covert 
> operation? His response was immediate and uncompromising -- being 
> ordered to do something, even if you are a soldier, policeman, or 
> member of a covert/intelligence organization, constitutes no defense 
> in western or international law to performing an illegal act, which 
> killing Dumbledore would most definitely be.  Once again, such a 
> factor might be accepted as a mitigating circumstance when it comes 
> to determination of punishment, but not certainly as having any 
> relevance or bearing on the question of guilt.
> <SNIP>
> He said that one of the most 
> bedrock principles of western military law is that orders to violate 
> the law of war (i.e. killing a non-legitimate target which 
> Dumbledore would be) are themselves a crime.  Therefore, if 
> Dumbledore did indeed order Snape to do that, Dumbledore would 
> himself be charged with the crime of issuing an illegal order.
> The fact that Dumbledore himself ... was the target would be
> immaterial.
> <SNIP>
> [H]e did say there were cases where covert operatives had claimed 
> that committing a crime was necessary to preserving their cover, 
> thus preserving their lives.  His response was unequivocal - no  
> defense. Although it is possible that such people might not be 
> prosecuted, that is a political question.
> <SNIP>
> 

I considered responding on OT, but the discussion began here.  So, to
try to make this on-topic, what your attorney is saying is that if
Dumbledore chose to die rather than fall into the hands of the enemy
and possibly reveal secrets under torture, he was guilty of at least
fomenting a crime.  Even if Dumbledore ordered Snape to eliminate him
to prevent the deaths or capture of others, among them the only one
with the power to defeat their enemy, in the eyes of military law, he
would be guilty of soliciting for a criminal purpose.  Even if
Dumbledore was already dying, if he begged Snape to act to spare him
and others from more suffering, Snape in so acting was guilty of
causing Dumbledore's death no matter how he chose to do it, even if he
threw him up into the air and let matters take their own course after
that -- even if he was following orders.  Fair enough, by military law.

But is military law the only rule, especially in the Potterverse,
where it hasn't featured prominently, that I remember?  What if
Dumbledore chose to give his life so others could live?  Dumbledore
would not have been the first such sacrifice in the books.  If this
was the case, then wouldn't Dumbledore have been a honorable man, on
balance, not guilty of criminally luring another into commiting
murder?  It's as if they were on a life raft, and the physically
weakest person realized the others could survive if they stopped
wasting provisions on him.  Wanting to spare them his painful death,
knowing they will try to save him, he asks the strongest to throw him
over the side.

And what of Snape, who, let's say following Dumbledore's orders as he
has been seen to do in the past, suffers a torn soul, almost universal
hatred, and probable death?  Is there an outside possibility he is
also an honorable man, subsuming his emotions and life to serve a
greater good, on the command of someone he respects and wishes to save
from suffering?

Legal niceties aside, what should Snape have done on the tower?  Legal
niceties aside, should Dumbledore have ordered Harry to force-feed him
what was, by all evidence, a lethal potion in the cave?  Shouldn't
Harry have just turned around and said, as his conscience may have
dictated, "Forget this -- you're wrong, there has to be another way."
Once committed, Harry had no other way out, because Dumbledore
insisted on pursuing his plan.

I do not think Snape had a way out, either.  I expect he will pay for
his action with his life, but that was the tragic part of his choice
all along.

Your attorney is indeed interesting.  But what an attorney will say
and what he or she can or will do may be two different things. 
Officially, attorneys will put a good face on the law, especially a
prosecutor in a high-profile position.  But what is the reality of
cases where the defense is "following orders"?  Without going into
enough detail to take this off-topic, I submit, Nuremberg
notwithstanding, that the outcomes of *actual* cases vary widely from
the theoretical ideals your attorney presented.

For that matter, what would a defense attorney say?  There are
soldiers for whom any killing is soul-shattering, yet they are
trained, sadly, to follow orders.  Who speaks for them?  And what if
the killing was in fact euthanasia, legal in many parts of the world,
and often only requiring the consent of a terminally ill adult?  But
this is the wizarding world, and may have its own laws on military
justice and euthanasia, and we just do not know what they are.

lealess






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 23:11:57 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:11:57 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl367v+q306@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl38ft+f0vs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142897

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

> The "is Snape a goodie or a baddie" theme has been a reliable 
> tension point for the entire series.  You would either tie it up in 
> the climax of the series proper, or you would tie it up well in 
> advance so you have time to introduce a new question. 

Well, except that we've had two of the major threads still open for 
the last book running the entire way.  What is Snape up to, but far 
more importantly: what *is* Voldemort and how are we going to get rid 
of him.  Some have postulated a scenario where these two things are 
intimately and completely connected, but there's any number of 
balances possible.

<snip>

> Soooo, she would just leave out the bit where Dumbledore realized 
> the guy he trusted so profoundly is Evil.  Right.  

Well, if you believe Harry, Dumbledore is 'pleading' at the end of 
the book.  Here's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't editor's 
class dilemma for you:

Some readers want to argue that Harry's perception is faulty because 
Dumbledore would *never* plead.  But the contra-argument is that it's 
precisely Dumbledore's exceptional pleading that makes the scene what 
it is.  So do we smooth it out to conform to an idea of the 
character, or do we let it stand in its spiky discomfort?

And yes, Dumbledore is not the center of the books, so his reaction 
is infinitely less interesting to her than Harry's.

> All it would have taken to remove all ambiguity from that scene is
> ONE LINE from Dumbledore, one closeup where he absorbs his 
> betrayal. JKR deliberately left it ambiguous.  Meaning Snape's 
> loyalties are still to be resolved.

Agree that it's deeply ambiguous.  However, worth thinking about is 
that she may well be interesting in making us *think* that it's 
ambiguous when it's really not going to be in the long run.  Hiding 
in plain sight, as it were.  It may be a case of "Snape's loyalties 
are still to be revealed for sure" rather than the more 
active "resolved".

>> I don't think Mozart is the best analogy for Rowling, because 
>> Mozart is not a genre bender in the symphony (while Rowling is at 
>> least playing with the combinations of genre, enough to scramble 
>> our expectations.) 
> 
> ?  JKR is COMBINES genres, but she doesn't break them.

But as soon as you combine genres, things get messy.  Look at the 
tonal plans of symphonic tone poems if you don't believe me. :)  The 
demands of dramatic structure wreak havoc on normative tonal plans.

It's the combination of factors that complicates the guessing, I 
think.

> But Harry relying on his own judgement hasn't been a question mark. 
> He's been pretty alarmingly independent since book 1.  He never 
> said, like Lupin, Dumbledore trusts Snape and that's good enough 
> for me. There is no modulation there.  If anything, there's been a 
> theme of Harry not relying sufficiently on other people.

But it has been such a theme for others just to rely on Dumbledore, 
end of story.  As Darrin posted long ago, it begins to reek of "the 
lady doth protest too much".  Rowling deliberately put the second-
hand trust issue front and center in this book, even more than in 
OotP.  A healthy synthesis would be not to see others simply relying 
upon the authority figures, but demanding information and questioning 
and sharing.  Dumbledore *doesn't answer* Harry's questions and 
objections--and I think this is presented as A Bad Thing.  It makes 
sense to me, at least, that it's precisely the bad thing which leads 
to the tragic consequences of the end of the book.  Rowling could 
give us a solution which mitigates some of the tragedy, or not.  I 
have a personal preference for the not, but I can see it going either 
way.

<snip>

> Harry will die in some unusual/incomplete fashion, and come back to
> life.  A land-of-the-dead sequence is de-rigeur for this sort of 
> story.

That does violate Rowling's own comments about "dead is dead" in the 
Potterverse, but we'll have to see.  I'll put my bets against actual 
death.

> But that hasn't been what has been set up as the 'question mark' in
> that relationship.  The emphasis has never been on Harry wanting to
> punish Snape, which is what would be required for 'Harry forgives
> Snape' to be a resolution (Draco, maybe?).

But now it really is.  Harry's comments at the end, the whole "if I 
catch up with him so much the worse" speak to the vengeance theme 
coming to the forefront--as do Rowling's comments about how now it's 
really personal.  It's there, and I don't see why she should have to 
have a laser focus on the theme of the past books as opposed to 
focusing on something a lil' different.

> The unanswered question, which Harry has pointed asked and 
> tantilizingly gotten no answer, is 'Why does D-dore trust
> Snape'?  Trust is the key word that is used again and again, and 
> trust is what the resolution must involve.  The vengeance idea is 
> not, if I may use a musical metaphor, a note that belongs in this 
> chord.

Trust, trust.  It involves knowing the reasons for actions, to be 
able to trust someone--especially someone who's shown the 
orientations that Snape has.  But isn't trust also going to *have* to 
involve a forebearance from vengeance?  Especially given the depths 
of what Snape has been and done, it's going to have to involve more 
than a leap of faith based on hearsay, but some kind of deep 
emotional connection (probably more that than the kind of factual 
analysis this group revels in).

Of course, Snape may not be trustworthy at the present at all.  We 
have to also leave open the idea that he's shifted through the 
series.  Oh, it raises some problems, but it's a clean answer to 
others.

-Nora pulls out that fabulous Lohengrin pirate with Nicolai Gedda and 
grooves to the thirds-cycles






From kjones at telus.net  Sat Nov 12 00:11:43 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:11:43 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting
 perspective
In-Reply-To: <dl2uk0+r7uo@eGroups.com>
References: <dl2uk0+r7uo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4375333F.2020008@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142898

lupinlore wrote:
  snip
> In any case, given what we know about what happened on the tower (as
> opposed to what has been theorized about it), his belief was that
> conviction probability would be essentially 100%, and in fact expressed
> the belief that no experienced defense lawyer would even try to mount a
> defense on the available evidence (always assuming their isn't some
> twist like a fake AK waiting to be sprung) and would almost certainly
> plea-bargain to avoid a death penalty, which would be essentially
> guaranteed if a conviction was handed down by a military tribunal.

KJ writes:
    Speaking as a former police constable, I would have to say that this 
whole post is a pretty accurate statement of affairs. The fact of 
Snape's guilt is a given. The only thing that could prevent that is if 
Dumbledore arrived well and healthy at his trial, to testify that it was 
all a fraud. I, personally, do not think that is what will happen, and 
there was no one who could testify to any mitigating factors.

    No defense attorney in his right mind would even bring up the UV 
because it would quite handily prove the premedition required for a 
charge of capital murder. While there is allowance made under Canadian 
law for the commission of an offense as a result of threat of immediate 
death, this would not be a good defense for Snape. He not only 
volunteered to take the vow, he choreographed it.

    One of the reasons for being completely dumb-struck at this scene in 
the tower is that I understood the fact of Snape's guilt immediately and 
what that decision had just cost him. I believe that Snape is DD's man 
all the way and also that DD badgered, cajoled, and begged him to take 
the final step should it become necessary. If Snape had been OFH until 
that point, he was now forced to make a decision. As Snape had such a 
need for recognition and respect as a result of his childhood, I think 
that he would have cheerfully chosen death for himself over the 
dishonour to himself and his family (assuming he has one) rather than 
obey DD's last request. I couldn't believe that JKR had done it to him. 
Bad enough that she made him ugly, greasy, and nasty, now she removes 
any chance of redemption other than at the cost of his life. I'm sorry, 
but I find that I can live without Sirius, the loss of Dumbledore was 
quite bearable, and I'm quite looking forward to the demise of Volemort, 
even at the expense of Harry. I really feel sorry for Snape.:)
KJ












From ragingjess at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 12 00:16:29 2005
From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:16:29 -0000
Subject: More OFH! Snape (Responses to two posts)
Message-ID: <dl3c8t+ah0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142899

(My boss has left me alone in the office with a box of bottle-shaped 
chocolate liqueurs - let the fun begin!)

Way back when ago, Jessica wrote:

> Here's where I run into a problem with OFH! Snape - why wouldn't a 
> Snape who's concerned with his own safety first and foremost even 
> attempt to make nice with the kid who might defeat the Big Bad in 
> accordance with the prophecy?  

And Nora responded:

<small snip>

>  One which I myself incline to is that one thing OFH!Snape likes 
>  about being where he is is that he has a boss who's really quite 
>  lenient towards his foibles, up to a point.  I keep coming back to 
>  the JKR interview comment about Dumbledore and Hagrid, and how 
>  Dumbledore could have gone and told Hagrid to snap out of it--but 
>  he wanted Hagrid to figure it out for himself, because it would be 
>  better than way.  Dumbledore isn't going to force anyone to have 
>  an epiphany, just put them into situations where he hopes they'll 
>  do it for themselves.  Given that kind of tolerance, OFH!Snape, so 
>  long as he toes some lines, is free to indulge in his displaced 
>  antagonism towards James; Dumbledore isn't going to *make* him get 
>  over it, just hope that he will.

>  And in at least one reading of OFH!ness, Snape prioritizes what it 
> is that Snape wants.  Particularly as the books go along, it would 
>  take more and more to admit to himself that his judgement hadn't 
>  been particularly sound, and to deal with his lingering grudges 
>  and resentments.  Maybe he just doesn't *want* to, because he 
>  holds his hatreds dear?  [There's a potential object lesson for 
>  both Harry and the kiddies...]

>  One also wonders how seriously Snape takes the prophecy.  He 
> doesn't know all of it, I do believe (canonically).  He seems 
>  pretty dismissive of Harry's chances in HBP, although of course he 
>  could be lying.  It's about 60/40 whether he really puts his faith 
>  in Harry as the man for the job, IMO.

Jessica now:

I should explain that, when I think about an OFH!Snape, I think about 
someone who examines all of the options to see which one will be best 
for him.  (In this way, I'd distinguish him from some of the other 
flavors of Snape, such as Garbo!Snape (he vants to be alone)or 
OffTheWagon!Snape or any other non-ESE! or DDM!Snape.)  When Harry 
arrives at Hogwarts, Snape knows the following about him:

1.  He's "the boy who lived."
2.  He's "the one who has the power to vanquish the Dark Lord."
3.  He's the son of James and Lily Potter.

So, knowing that Harry has survived an AK and is the prophecy boy, 
what's the first thing that Snape does when Harry shows up in his 
class?  He antagonizes Harry and humiliates him in front of the 
class.  That's the point that I can't wrap my head around - if Snape 
is covering all his bases, why would he go out of his way to make an 
enemy of someone he might need later?  Snape doesn't even have to be 
particularly nice to Harry; he just has to not be mean to him.  It 
eliminates an option for Snape, which is not very smart at all when 
one is trying to play both (or all three sides) against each other.  
(In fact, if Snape is not lying when he tells Bella and Narcissa that 
he thought Harry might be another Dark Lord, antagonizing Harry is 
very, very stupid.)

Conversely, I do agree with you that it's possible that Snape might 
not take the prophecy very seriously, but he would then appear to be 
the only person in the WW who isn't, and I'd love to know why.  Also, 
it's possible that, at the beginning, he might not be aware that  
Voldemort is back, so he doesn't need to worry about whether Harry 
can defeat him or not.  However, it seems to me that someone who 
really is trying to work out the best deal for himself doesn't make 
unnecessary enemies and doesn't get himself trapped by Unbreakable 
Vows.  These are not mistakes that, say, Slughorn would make.  
(Slughorn's a good guy, but he's probably an expert at supporting 
opposing sides in a conflict.)

As you wrote, Snape does, indeed, hold his hatreds dear.  But would 
his hatred of James override his desire to be on the winning side?  
How OFH is OFH!Snape?

And, in another message, Sydney wrote:

>  The larger objection is a wavering, agonizing, side-switching 
>  Snape is just such a massive focus-puller.  It would make Snape, 
>  not Harry,making all the critical choices and going through the 
>  most interesting emotions at the end of the book.  Story-wise I'm 
>  much happier having Snape running down a pretty clear, 
>  straightforward track, and Harry doing all the mind-changing.  For 
>  this reason I would prefer Evil!Snape to conflicted!Snape, because 
>  much as I'd rather read a book about Snape, this ain't it.

My thoughts exactly.  The more I think about an OFH!Snape, the more 
I'm intrigued by him, but I don't think he's in this series.  

Yours,
Jessica  
(who prefers the Vanilla Stoli, in case anyone wants to buy her 
chocolates)









From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 00:28:42 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:28:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CHAPDISC3: Harry stating the Order's HQ?
In-Reply-To: <dl0svp+n6ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051112002842.19199.qmail@web34903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142900



Pippin wrote:
"Harry never mentions the Order, and I suspect that if he did, the Dursleys would not have been able to process the information, just as Voldemort could have had his nose pressed to the window in Godric's Hollow and not seen the Potters inside."



CH3ed:

I agree. I don't think it has to do with knowing the address, but it has to do with being able to find it. I think LV already knows (or have a very good idea) of where Order Headquarter is since Bella was a Black. But unless the Secret Keeper tells you that information you won't be able to get to 12GP or even see it (like Harry when he first arrived there). 

The only catch is if the DE's already know or suspect 12GP they could set up ambush around the place (but they haven't done that that we know of) if they want to go after Order members, ay? But then maybe that's the result of other charms like 'untraceable' and 'unplottable'? I'd love to know how to do that so I don't keep getting solicitors' mails.


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 12 00:48:39 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:48:39 -0800
Subject: Harry heroic?
In-Reply-To: <437510A3.8060804@telus.net>
Message-ID: <001c01c5e722$d37fa770$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142901

KJ writes:
    The point to all this is that, in my opinion, while the books are 
from Harry's point of view, which make him the key character, they do 
not necessarily make him the *hero*.
KJ


Sherry now:
Ah, you've hit on one of my favorite subjects!  What is a hero?  of course,
my opinion only here.  A hero is not perfection.  He is not strong all the
time, brave all the time, always doing the right thing, smarter and better
than everyone else.  He's the average guy--or gal--who in spite of
everything keeps getting up and going again, fighting the fight.  What you
see as nothing particularly heroic, I see as incredibly heroic!  

let's take Harry's preventing Sirius and Remus killing Peter.  That is one
of the most heroic things in all the books.  no matter what the eventual
negative outcome--and we still don't know how that act may play out in the
end game--Harry was right to save Peter.  He kept his father's friends from
becoming murderers, even though he probably wanted Peter dead as much as he
was able to think such a thing at the age of 13.

And still in POA, where i found him heroic was rushing after Sirius,
desperately trying to cast the patronus in spite of 100 dementors till he
finally passed out.  

In GOF, he may have been the victim of circumstances beyond his control, but
with all the fear and worry, he kept going, kept trying.  He was a hero by
telling Cedric about the dragons.  He was definitely a hero in the second
task--i never considered his moral fiber to be stupid or foolish.  He was
heroic in the third task.  he was damned heroic in the grave yard, hanging
on for dear life to his wand during the wand joining, could have saved
himself without keeping his promise to Cedric, but still did bring him back.
He was heroic in Dumbledore's office, telling that horrible story.  oh yes,
for me, he was a great hero in GOF.

As for OOTP, he was heroic standing up to Umbridge.  and remember, he stood
up to her before anyone else did.  he saved his miserable cousin too.  it
doesn't matter about the occlumency lessons now, because we know from JKR,
that he'd never be good at it.  Besides that, even if he'd listened to
Hermione that it could be a fake vision, he still would have rushed off to
rescue Sirius, as Sirius would rush to save him.  That is not what ended up
killing Sirius.  it is not Harry's fault.  It is Voldemort's fault and
Bella's, and maybe Snape's, considering what he said to the sisters in HBP.

So, maybe not the classic hero, but a hero nevertheless.  The heroes for me
are the ones who against their own faults and flaws and all the odds, they
keep getting up and doing what must be done.  Even if sometimes in the real
world, that means, just getting up everyday and living another day in the
midst of terrible trials.  With all his mistakes, impulsiveness, and faults,
Harry is still a hero i can care very much about, far more than Dumbledore
always being right, or Snape becoming the great unsung hero of the series.  

Sherry




From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 01:02:16 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:02:16 -0000
Subject: More OFH! Snape (Responses to two posts)
In-Reply-To: <dl3c8t+ah0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3euo+j1tk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142902

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jessicabathurst" 
<ragingjess at h...> wrote:

>> Jessica now:
> 
> I should explain that, when I think about an OFH!Snape, I think 
> about someone who examines all of the options to see which one will 
> be best for him. 

So let me immediately re-raise the issue that 'best for him' can be a 
tricky thing to define, and really depends on perspective.  This is 
the philosophical problem that gets pulled out in first-year classes 
to whack utilitarianism, which is otherwise pretty sound: how do we 
value 'what is best for someone'?  It's hard to compare things like 
personal gratification and social standing without knowing the 
internal scale which an actor is using, and even those scales of 
value can fluctuate.

> That's the point that I can't wrap my head around - if Snape is 
> covering all his bases, why would he go out of his way to make an 
> enemy of someone he might need later?

He's gratifying another good to him: his personal (kinda twisted) 
sense of retribution.  And he knows that Dumbledore will let him get 
away with a certain amount of it.

> Conversely, I do agree with you that it's possible that Snape might 
> not take the prophecy very seriously, but he would then appear to
> be the only person in the WW who isn't, and I'd love to know why.  

Idle thoughts; Snape makes the logic puzzle at the end of PS/SS.  
Maybe he's disinclined to think in all the ways that others might 
fall into.  I'm deeply ambivalent about the status of prophecy in the 
Potterverse myself, so it's not hard to imagine him being the same 
way--particularly given his own valuation of his own skills (as 
opposed to fate and other intangibles).

<snip>

> As you wrote, Snape does, indeed, hold his hatreds dear.  But would 
> his hatred of James override his desire to be on the winning side?  
> How OFH is OFH!Snape?

Well, part of my postulate in how I think of OFH!Snape, particularly 
after HBP, is that he's been having his doubts about what the winning 
side is going to be.  Unlike us, he doesn't know that he's in a 
series entitled "Harry Potter and the <insert foo here>".  He appears 
to push at Dumbledore's attention to Harry, and probably doesn't 
share Dumbledore's high valuation of Harry Potter.  But no, 
Dumbledore keeps insisting on Harry Potter being special and valuable-
-when Snape just knows he is nothing of the sort--and Dumbledore is 
showing more weakness than ever, and depending on Snape for 
assistance.  Time more than ever to keep the options open.  Snape 
just doesn't know that Harry is going to win for sure. :)

-Nora likes the high-proof stuff...







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 12 01:06:08 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:06:08 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl2siu+ips8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3f60+kvic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142903

I am essentially replying to the title of this thread. Although I have
read several of the arguments/discussion points put forward within it,
I find myself behind the pack on those particular trains of thought. 

So to the essential question of what a successful AK means IMO. The
bare bones consideration of this topic to me is that a successful
Avada Kedavra on the tower implies specific demands of the two
characters involved (namely Snape and Dumbledore), and the lack of
canon exposition on those demands is where I view the most ambiguity
in the scene.

As I see it firstly, a true betrayal of Dumbledore resulting in his
discomposing and inopportune death warrants a greater reaction than
the small limp vocal objection that is all we seem to get from him. 

To argue the above point from the other side, a balanced view
acknowledges Snape's powers extend to Occlumency which can mean that
up until the very moment that the spell discharges from his wand
Dumbledore could *not* know anything but that Snape intends to protect
him. ----- But this perspective places Dumbledores plea firmly within
the scope of Dumbledore asking Snape to take on three (or four) death
eaters *alone* (wouldn't it be better if Harry could help?) *without*
harming or losing accidentally or otherwise the two children in the
room, while healing and fortifying Dumbledore for the battle *at the
same time* (with wand retrieval in there somewhere too). 

Returning to my original side of the argument - Dumbledore, it can be
believed, sure, is soft enough in the middle to have given the wrong
person a second chance. But is he really a man who would survey a
scene of battle and consider the above stratagem? Moreover - with
Harry having told Dumbledore unequivocally that Snape had claimed to
have taken the Unbreakable Vow - would he be so ignorant as to leave
the fate of his beloved school in the hands of a man who might die on
the spot if he tries to help?

Giving as much leeway as humanly possible to the ESE Snape argument of
a successful unambiguous killing curse. The pinpoint moment that
Dumbledore was obliged to act was the instant he was aware that his
castle had been infiltrated by Death Eaters. This is a good TEN
MINUTES before the killing curse. Dumbledore was given 10 minutes of
knowing that his /best/ man and the man *he* had called to his side
might not be able to do ANYTHING, and yet, he didn't act! If Snape
betrayed Dumbledore, then Dumbledore gave it to him on a silver
platter because he had good reason to not rely on even a DDM Snape (if
not the UV then at least the DADA curse or just the impossible ambush
that he was in!). They were, simply, overwhelmed, angle by angle.

Before they go to the cave Dumbledore is very insistent on this point
he says to Harry (paraphrase) - Do you think for one instant that I
have neglected to think of the safety of my students? This is a very
important statement. Dumbledore is adamant *all* his manouvres are in
complete consideration of the safety of his students. Is handing the
bottleneck on the tower to a man who *maybe* can *not* act in
character for that person? If Dumbledore trusted Snape not to kill him
then it follows that Dumbledore himself was obliged to act there and
then on the tower. Or else, it was just impossible and he really *was*
trapped - but he says himself that he isn't!

Hence my first and foremost statement of what a successful AK means -
It means Dumbledore was obliged to act when he did no such thing.

Secondly the action of casting a killing curse involves a specific but
innominate emotional/psychological force behind it. I believe this is
an established fact, but others can argue that it is not factually
spelled out, because it isn't exactly.

Assuming that this is an established fact then it follows that a
succesful Avada Kedavra demands that Snape possess this psyche/emote
in order to cast it. I fail to see this unambiguously established. In
fact I see deliberate overtones of it being weighed *against*
throughout HBP. Specifically they are: Bella's accusation that Snape
slithers out of action, and Dumbledore insisting that Snape left the
Death Eaters because he felt remorse for putting *both* Harry's
parents in the line of fire. There is huge ambiguity in this statement
but it reaches all the way to the edges where Snape can't even stomach
being involved in the death of his *sworn Nemesis*. IOW Snape might
not even have been able to stomach James dying as a result of his
actions. It's a slim chance but it wasn't left out, and that makes it
impossible to say that Snape possesses the psyhce/emote for a
successful AK. 

So my second point is that a successful AK demands that Snape was
disimpassioned? to human life (and possibly even split his soul).
Ultimately impossible to determine.

These are the two things that a successful AK means IMO. 

Valky









From ragingjess at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 12 01:06:42 2005
From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:06:42 -0000
Subject: A Shot at Redemption (Was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl1jlt+rpt7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3f72+2fmo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142904

Lupinlore wrote:

<snip>
 
> So, if it really was a true AK, what would that mean?  Would it be 
> possible for Snape to be truly and completely on the side of light 
if 
> he indeed used a real unforgiveable?  I think many people sense 
that 
> the answer to that is "No," and hence we have an argument about 
> whether he really cast an AK.

> As I see it we have three possibilities if the AK was genuine and 
> successful:

<snip #1, which I agree isn't interesting.>

> 2) Snape is good and his use of the AK is a special case, as with 
the 
> Aurors.  Okay, but that's hard to swallow, especially as Snape 
isn't 
> an auror and even the aurors' use of unforgiveables is presented to 
> us in a way that makes them seem morally questionable.  Why would a 
> good Snape who wanted to kill Dumbledore use an AK?  There would be 
> many other ways to kill the man without resorting to an 
> Unforgiveable.  Is that because it's what a DE would do?  But why 
did 
> the DEs in the ministry at the end of OOTP seem so reluctant to use 
> them?

Jessica:

How many other ways?  Given the unusual physical powers of wizards, 
what would have killed Dumbledore?  (I'm being very serious here.)  
I'm not even certain that dropping Dumbledore off of the tower would 
have killed him, given that falling from a great height didn't kill 
practically squib Neville.  Sectumsempra?  I don't know.

> 3)  We are supposed to take the word "Unforgiveable" as being 
> literal, morally if not always legally.  Thus if Snape did indeed 
use 
> an Unforgiveable he's not good in a moral and magical sense.  Of 
> course a not-good Snape need not be loyal to Voldemort.  

<some snippage here about the merits of #3>

>  ...but at the same time would give due to all of the evidence that 
>  Snape has a severe dark side that merits concern and indeed, 
>  punishment.  It would mean that the AK is 
> in fact another clue about Snape, just as are DD's constant 
> blitherings about how he trusts the Potions Master.  DD is telling 
>  us  that Snape is not always on the side of evil, but the AK is 
> telling  us he's not one of the good guys, either.  

I, too, believe that "not-good" does not necessarily mean "evil,"  
but I'm not convinced that Snape isn't one of the good guys.  His 
dark side is certainly more visible and active than most of the other 
characters in the series, but it also seems to give fuel to what 
could be considered positive about Snape:  his curiosity, his 
research into/invention of curses and cures, his love of DADA.  I 
don't think his dark side per se deserves punishment, although 
killing Dumbledore certainly does.  (Since I think Snape will be 
tortured enough knowing that he killed his mentor and a man who loved 
him, I prefer that his punishment be of the legal variety, which I 
agree will be forthcoming.)

> In any case, if we take JKR at her word about Unforgiveables - and 
I 
> don't think we have much evidence that she wasn't being literal - I 
> don't see any way for Snape to cast a successful AK and come out, 
in 
> the end, as being good (in the sense of morally good, not in the 
> sense of being against Voldy, which could spring from all kinds of 
> motivations).

And this asks the question:  can one be morally good and commit a 
mortal sin?  (I don't mean this in the strictly Catholic sense, but 
in the Most Serious Sin sense.)  What does redemption mean in a case 
like this?  Lupinlore, you wrote:

> Could a Snape that has cast an AK be redeemed?  I suppose so, but 
> only at the cost of his life (after giving an apology to Harry and 
> Neville for his behavior, of course, which would be required for 
his 
> redemption under any circumstances).*  What message would that send 
> about redemption, I hear some ask?  Simply that redemption is very 
> hard and very costly, and sometimes costs you everything you have.
> *Would a Snape who dies but does not admit he has been wrong and 
> apologize be redeemed?  The answer is absolutely no.

I would disagree on both counts.  I don't think Snape has to die to 
be redeemed (although I think his chances of surviving Book 7 are at 
about 10%), simply because death in itself wouldn't do anything 
except end his life.  It wouldn't make up for any of the crimes he 
may or may not have committed, it wouldn't help Snape see the error 
of his Death Eater ways (if that's what he's returned to), and it 
wouldn't reconcile Snape with Harry.  Redemption would require Snape 
to a) recognize his sins, b) atone for those sins, and c) make amends 
where possible.  Since the only sin that I see Snape needing to atone 
for is the murder of Dumbledore, I'd expect to see Redemption!Snape 
enacting Dumbledore's agenda in Book 7:  protecting Draco, protecting 
and enabling Harry, and revealing crucial information to the Order 
and/or Harry about Voldemort.  (How he would do this is anyone's 
guess.)  It's not possible for Snape to make direct amends to 
Dumbledore, so he's got to live with that guilt on his own.  

It is, however, possible for Snape to make amends to Harry and 
Neville, although I'm not certain I'd classify Snape's assy behavior 
towards them as a sin or as an evil, so I don't think that he needs 
to apologize to them to be redeemed.  There's a huge difference 
between being a mean teacher and being a murderer.  Also, I don't 
expect Snape to go all 12-Step with this redemption thing and start 
making amends with everyone; atoning for Dumbledore's murder is the 
primary thing.  (Although, now that I think about it, I'd love to see 
Snape in a Death Eaters Anonymous group with Karkaroff and Regulus 
Black.  "It's been twelve days since I baited Muggles/cast an 
Unforgiveable/wore an unflattering hood.")

Yours,
Jessica
(who is still at work at 8pm and wonders if thirty is too late to 
discover that you have a trust fund)









From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 01:20:53 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:20:53 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl38ft+f0vs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3g1l+i6b4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142905


> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
> 
> > The "is Snape a goodie or a baddie" theme has been a reliable 
> > tension point for the entire series.  You would either tie it up in 
> > the climax of the series proper, or you would tie it up well in 
> > advance so you have time to introduce a new question. 
> 
> Well, except that we've had two of the major threads still open for 
> the last book running the entire way.  What is Snape up to, but far 
> more importantly: what *is* Voldemort and how are we going to get rid 
> of him. 

Obviously Voldemort is the A plot.  But B and C plots still follow the
same rule. I reitreate, the end of the 2nd act would be an extremely
weird place to tie up a plotline.

> <snip>
> 
> > Soooo, she would just leave out the bit where Dumbledore realized 
> > the guy he trusted so profoundly is Evil.  Right.  
> 
> Well, if you believe Harry, Dumbledore is 'pleading' at the end of 
> the book.  

As I said in the post, what's missing is the TRANSITION.  The moment
WHEN the realization hits Dumbleodore.  The 'pleading' would have to
be moment just after.  

> Some readers want to argue that Harry's perception is faulty because 
> Dumbledore would *never* plead.  But the contra-argument is that it's 
> precisely Dumbledore's exceptional pleading that makes the scene what 
> it is.  So do we smooth it out to conform to an idea of the 
> character, or do we let it stand in its spiky discomfort?

*furrows brow*.  Do you mean the 'spiky discomfort' of Dumbeldore
reduced to pleading?  Heck, yeah, I would smooth out that spiky
dicomfort.  Why introduce an entirely new note into a major character
10 seconds before he dies?  Especially when there's a world of rich,
yummy drama left to milk on the guy who's still standing?

> 
> And yes, Dumbledore is not the center of the books, so his reaction 
> is infinitely less interesting to her than Harry's.

But of no interest whatsoever?  Anyhow, we seem to agree on the main
point, which is:

> 
> Agree that it's deeply ambiguous.  However, worth thinking about is 
> that she may well be interesting in making us *think* that it's 
> ambiguous when it's really not going to be in the long run. 

Well, that would assume the series was written so the reversal shock
would mainly hit the 10 percent of her audience who are Snape fans.
And that to this end, she was willing to have the reversal shock
bypass, you know, Harry.

> > ?  JKR is COMBINES genres, but she doesn't break them.
> 
> But as soon as you combine genres, things get messy.  Look at the 
> tonal plans of symphonic tone poems if you don't believe me. :)  The 
> demands of dramatic structure wreak havoc on normative tonal plans.

I have no idea about music theory, but in terms of dramatic theory,
it's really not that complicated.  Snape fullfills two roles in the
books:  the Red Herring (for the mystery plots) and the unreconciled
Shadow (for the psychodrama).  She hasn't dirupted the through line of
any of her genres, no matter how much she entwines them she does not
distort their essential nature.
 
> But it has been such a theme for others just to rely on Dumbledore, 
> end of story. 

Yeah, but who cares?  The point is Harry.  Harry who has had an
emotionally intense relationship with Snape from his first appearance,
who gets to have all sorts of enimgmatic scenes with him, Harry who
has this big unresolved thing with Snape, Harry with whom it is
PERSONAL.  Other people get a couple of lines of dialogue.  Teeny tiny
buildup, crapola payoff.  

Believe me, much as I loathe Pettigrew, if he had had an emotionally
intense and ambiguous scene with Harry in every single book and we got
POV Harry stuff where he was all "Harry was desperate for more reasons
to hate Peter" or if Peter's loyalties were a huge questionmark over
the series, I would not hesitate in assuming the Redemption of Peter
was going to be the big payoff.  As it is, I could go either way with
Peter, because I don't feel I have enough buildup either way. 
 
> > Harry will die in some unusual/incomplete fashion, and come back to
> > life.  A land-of-the-dead sequence is de-rigeur for this sort of 
> > story.
> 
> That does violate Rowling's own comments about "dead is dead" in the 
> Potterverse, but we'll have to see.  I'll put my bets against actual 
> death.

I definietly wouldn't say 'actual death'. The Draught of Living Death
has been suggested. I don't know how the 'behind the veil' scene would
work, but I have this dread that it will feature a lot of dry ice and
people floating around;  the end of GoF was too cheesy for my tastes.


> > But that hasn't been what has been set up as the 'question mark' in
> > that relationship.  The emphasis has never been on Harry wanting to
> > punish Snape, which is what would be required for 'Harry forgives
> > Snape' to be a resolution (Draco, maybe?).
> 
> But now it really is. 

No, it really isn't.  Because as we agreed above, Snape's actions are
still ambiguous.  The sentence isn't finished.


>It's there, and I don't see why she should have to 
> have a laser focus on the theme of the past books as opposed to 
> focusing on something a lil' different.

It's not a 'little different'.  It's "once upon a time there was a
wolf, and the wolf was about to eat a little girl, and then the little
girl had lunch".  It doesn't end the sentence.  

 
> > The unanswered question, which Harry has pointed asked and 
> > tantilizingly gotten no answer, is 'Why does D-dore trust
> > Snape'?  Trust is the key word that is used again and again, and 
> > trust is what the resolution must involve.  The vengeance idea is 
> > not, if I may use a musical metaphor, a note that belongs in this 
> > chord.
> 
> Trust, trust.  It involves knowing the reasons for actions, to be 
> able to trust someone--especially someone who's shown the 
> orientations that Snape has.  But isn't trust also going to *have* to 
> involve a forebearance from vengeance? 

Of course forgiveness is a big part of that.  But the main theme is
STILL trust, and Harry misinterpreting and misunderstanding Snape. 
Until you pay that off, you can't move on to the subsidiary point.

 Especially given the depths 
> of what Snape has been and done, it's going to have to involve more 
> than a leap of faith based on hearsay, but some kind of deep 
> emotional connection 

Oh, totally, it's going to involve some deep emotional connection.  I
hesitate to say it, but the Snape/Harry dynamic is structurally the
central relationship of the story.  It's the one that's had the most
investment put into keeping it destablizied;  it's featured in the
most emotinally intese scenes, it's the one left at it's nadir at the
top of the 3rd act.  Of course it could be a straightforward
protagonist/antagonist relationship, but it certainly hasn't been so far.

-- Sydney






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 01:21:19 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:21:19 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <4375333F.2020008@telus.net>
Message-ID: <dl3g2f+ucg3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142906

KJ:
>     One of the reasons for being completely dumb-struck at this
scene in 
> the tower is that I understood the fact of Snape's guilt immediately
and 
> what that decision had just cost him. [snip] I couldn't believe that
JKR had done it to him. 
> Bad enough that she made him ugly, greasy, and nasty, now she removes 
> any chance of redemption other than at the cost of his life. I'm sorry, 
> but I find that I can live without Sirius, the loss of Dumbledore was 
> quite bearable, and I'm quite looking forward to the demise of
Volemort, 
> even at the expense of Harry. I really feel sorry for Snape.:)

Dude.  The first thing I said to myself when I closed the book was,
"Oh my God.  Poor Snape."  I think it must have been what Sirius fans
felt at the end of OoP-- "you mean he just got more and more depressed
and then he DIED?!"  I gotta hand it to JKR-- she is simply rutheless
in putting her characters through the worst things she can think of.







From greatraven at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 12 01:46:24 2005
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:46:24 -0000
Subject: More talented friends and other questions
In-Reply-To: <dl3179+nc0u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3hhg+kbm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142907

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Okay, I have a thought, and then about a thousand questions . . . 
> 
> "He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a 
simple 
> combination of sheer luck and more talented friends.  He is 
mediocre 
> to the last degree . . . "
> 
> I have considered for a long time that ONE reason Snape is bad to 
> Harry is for Malfoy and the other Slytherins' benefit.  Malfoy 
going 
> home and telling his dad how awful Snape is to Harry and how poor 
> Harry's skills are, must earn Snape points with this DE family 
> (assuming Narcissa is a DE) and give them a feeling that Harry is 
> not so big of a problem.  
> 
> So, is Snape also telling LV that Harry is mediocre and gets out 
of 
> situations by luck and more talented friends?  
> 
> -Wouldn't this make LV take Harry less seriously than if Snape was 
> telling LV that Harry is growing to be a skilled wizard?  I wonder 
> what Snape REALLY thinks?  
> 
> -Who exactly are the more talented friend"s"?  Obviously Hermione 
is 
> very talented.  But who else?  Ron helped in PS with the chess 
game, 
> and I think we all hope to see him use his logic/battle skills in 
> the future, but how else have we seen him "talented"?  It seems 
his 
> study skills are as bad, possible worse, than Harry's.  Thinking 
> about the people in the DA and those fighting with him at the 
MoM.  
> Maybe Ginny, we don't know much about her skills.  But Luna?  
> Neville?   If anything, we could say he has gotten out of most his 
> serious situations with luck and help from Hermione and DD.  
> 
> -Is this statement putting in danger Harry's close friends, who LV 
> might be seeing as future threats.
> 
> Other questions:
> Does Snape walk around 24/7 practicing occlumency?  In PS/SS, when 
> Harry was with Quirrel/LV in front of the mirror, LV stated that 
> Harry was lying, even before Quirrel took off the turban.  Was he 
> just guessing?  Was LV able to practice legilimency that whole 
year 
> when he was part of Quirrel? 
> 
> Does Snape know about the horcruxes?  Is it possible that he was 
the 
> one who first told DD about LV having a horcrux?  Obviously RAB 
knew 
> he had one, so maybe Snape did too?  This would mean Snape would 
> feel confident that LV would be able to come back.  This could 
keep 
> him on guard and working at Hogwarts for all those years.  Whether 
> Snape is evil or not, I don't think he truly wanted LV to return.  
I 
> think he, Lucius and some of the other DEs have their own agendas 
> and were privately relieved when LV disappeared and they were not 
> thrown in Azkaban.
> 
> On the other hand, what exactly was Lucius trying to accomplish 
when 
> he gave Ginny Riddle's diary?  Did he know what it would do?  Did 
he 
> just want to open the chamber and get people killed or was he 
> looking for a way to get LV revived?  Did Lucius know it was a 
> horcrux?
> 
> So many questions . . . :) I had better stop there.  
> 
> Ginny343

Sue here,

Chuckle! Those are, indeed, a lot of questions, and I'm sure we'll 
be discussing them for some time. I think that the "more talented 
friends" probably is just a reference to Hermione, never mind the 
plural. Nah, I think he just hates James and, as a result, Harry. 
He's a pretty emotional dude and in the WW, which is a small 
community, grudges go on for a long time. I suspect Snape knows, in 
his heart of hearts, that Harry is anything but mediocre, and 
probably hates him even more because of it. Which doesn't mean he 
won't protect him if that's what it takes to save the world. 

As for the last question, I can answer that because I have just been 
listening to Stephen Fry reading HBP, chapter 23 is the one 
concerned. DD tells Harry exactly what happened with the diary 
horcrux - Lucius didn't know the horcrux was in there and just 
thought he'd kill a few birds with one stone. LV didn't know his 
horcrux had been destroyed till afterwards and was livid with 
Lucius, who is probably glad to be safe in Azkaban. I found this 
particularly interesting, because it has to be Snape who gave DD 
that information and probably Lucius who went to Snape for sympathy 
over the matter (who knows? A glass of expensive wine at Malfoy 
Manor and a good whinge... "I dunno, Severus, he never TOLD me he 
had a horcrux in there, did he? How was I supposed to know?" 
Interesting, too, to think of the aristocratic Malfoy hanging out 
with Snape, whom we know now is as working-class as they come, 
assuming that's his family home at Spinner's End!)
>







From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 01:46:40 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:46:40 -0000
Subject: On Snape and Lily
Message-ID: <dl3hi0+k9jt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142908

I'm still considering what I think about Snape and Lily having some 
sort of relationship.  I don't think it would be romantic, and I 
don't think he was "that awful boy".  However, although Snape never 
wastes an opportunity to rip on James, I don't recall any time he 
says anything at all to Harry about his mother (correct me if I'm 
wrong).  

In the pensieve scene, Lily seems a little taken aback by Snape's 
calling her "mudblood".  So, I assume this is something that didn't 
happen on a regular basis.  The very fact that Lily steps in to 
defend Snape shows that she does not have bad feelings for him.  
Maybe they didn't know each other well enough for Lily to have bad 
feelings about him . . . but seeing as they are in the same year, 
have shared many classes . . . I mean, 5 years of this, any person 
in this situation must have formed some sort of good or bad feelings 
about each person by that time.  

Of course, as someone pointed out in an earlier post, she probably 
changed her mind about Snape after this happened.  I can see her 
rolling her eyes irritatedly and walking away the next time James 
jinxed Snape - disapproving of James, but not defending Snape.

Ginny343







From ragingjess at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 12 01:52:40 2005
From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:52:40 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More OFH! Snape (Responses to two posts)
In-Reply-To: <dl3euo+j1tk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F2670F5139585B5C1BF937D4580@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 142909

 >> Jessica prior:
 >
 > I should explain that, when I think about an OFH!Snape, I think
 > about someone who examines all of the options to see which one will
 > be best for him.

Nora:
>  So let me immediately re-raise the issue that 'best for him' can be a 
>tricky thing to define, and >  really depends on perspective.
<snip>
>  It's hard to compare things like personal gratification and social 
>standing without knowing the  internal scale which an actor is using, and 
>even those scales of value can fluctuate.
<more snip>
>  He's gratifying another good to him: his personal (kinda twisted) sense 
>of retribution.  And he >  knows that Dumbledore will let him get away with 
>a certain amount of it.

Jessica now:

True, which is why I have such a hard time with a Snape who's working both 
ends to make sure he ends up on top.  He seems so much more committed to 
exacting revenge on everyone who wronged him in his youth (and their 
descendants) and to recreating himself as a figure of respect than he does 
with insuring his good position with either Voldemort or Dumbledore/OotP.  
That's why I have an easier time seeing him as being either DDM! or 
ESE!Snape, because then he doesn't have to spend time weighing any evidence 
or formulating any strategies to keep his options open; he's able to 
concentrate on what really matters - making Harry miserable.  <grin>

>  Idle thoughts; Snape makes the logic puzzle at the end of PS/SS. Maybe 
>he's disinclined to think > in all the ways that others might fall into.  
>I'm deeply ambivalent about the status of prophecy in > the Potterverse 
>myself, so it's not hard to imagine him being the same way--particularly 
>given his > own valuation of his own skills (as opposed to fate and other 
>intangibles).

That's certainly possible - I have no idea how strategic Snape really is, 
and he certainly doesn't leave a whole lot to chance.   I'd love to know 
more about prophecies and the people who doubt them, but I'm probably going 
to be disappointed on that one.

>...Part of my postulate in how I think of OFH!Snape, particularly after 
>HBP, is that he's been  having his doubts about what the winning side is 
>going to be.  Unlike us, he doesn't know that >  he's in a series entitled 
>"Harry Potter and the <insert foo here>".  He appears to push at  
>Dumbledore's attention to Harry, and probably doesn't share Dumbledore's 
>high valuation of  Harry Potter.  But no, Dumbledore keeps insisting on 
>Harry Potter being special and valuable-
>  -when Snape just knows he is nothing of the sort--and Dumbledore is 
>showing more weakness >  than ever, and depending on Snape for assistance.  
>Time more than ever to keep the options >  open.  Snape just doesn't know 
>that Harry is going to win for sure. :)

No, he doesn't, but he also doesn't know that Harry is going to NOT win for 
sure.  That's what I meant by keeping his options open - by alienating Harry 
(who I still maintain should be considered as his own "side," separate from 
Dumbledore/OotP), Snape's made it just that much harder for himself if Harry 
actually does defeat Voldemort.  Does OFH!Snape think the satisfaction 
gained by petty revenge against his enemy's son is worth sacrificing his own 
survival?  (And, yes, that's a pretty dramatic way of putting it, but Snape 
is pretty dramatic guy.  Sweeping black robes and all.)

Yours,
Jessica
(who's changed her mind and now prefers the Jack Daniels chocolates.  
*hick*)





From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 12 01:58:33 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:58:33 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <4375333F.2020008@telus.net>
Message-ID: <002101c5e72c$971748b0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142910

KJ writes:
    One of the reasons for being completely dumb-struck at this scene in 
the tower is that I understood the fact of Snape's guilt immediately and 
what that decision had just cost him. I believe that Snape is DD's man 
all the way and also that DD badgered, cajoled, and begged him to take 
the final step should it become necessary. If Snape had been OFH until 
that point, he was now forced to make a decision. As Snape had such a 
need for recognition and respect as a result of his childhood, I think 
that he would have cheerfully chosen death for himself over the 
dishonour to himself and his family (assuming he has one) rather than 
obey DD's last request. I couldn't believe that JKR had done it to him. 
Bad enough that she made him ugly, greasy, and nasty, now she removes 
any chance of redemption other than at the cost of his life. I'm sorry, 
but I find that I can live without Sirius, the loss of Dumbledore was 
quite bearable, and I'm quite looking forward to the demise of Volemort, 
even at the expense of Harry. I really feel sorry for Snape.:)
KJ



Sherry now:
oh my, i had to laugh.  not at you, but at how differently we all read
things.  you felt sorry for Snape.  my reaction was, 

oh my God, poor Harry!  Frozen, unable to even try to help.  Watching the
last person who was his mentor, teacher, helper, support ... watching him be
murdered in front of his eyes and not able to move!

i even thought, Oh crap, what about Draco?  This moment was so pivotal for
him, with Dumbledore offering a chance for something different, a way out of
the trap he was in with Voldemort.  is his fate sealed now?
i felt so bad for both boys on the tower.


And maybe that's the difference.  though I like and care about many of the
adult characters--Arthur and molly, Tonks, Remus, Sirius, James and Lily,
even McGonigal, Kingsley, Flitwick--i am mostly interested in the kids.
They are the stars of the show for me.  i think the ending, the success or
failure will depend on them.  If a supposed bad guy ends up helping, i think
it must be one of the kids, such as Draco.  not Snape, or any other adult.
The whole hero's journey, that JKR herself says she is doing, tells me that
no adult is going to come to the rescue and save Harry's bacon and by
extension the WW.  

i don't have much sympathy for an adult man who can blame a child for the
sins of his father or abuse verbally a child who is so obviously
terrified--meaning Neville.

But I have hopes for Draco, if he can somehow get away from Snape and
Voldemort.  If there's a good Slytherin who is not Slughorn, i hope for one
of the kids, not Snape or any other adult.

Sherry


Sherry




From muellem at bc.edu  Sat Nov 12 02:00:36 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:00:36 -0000
Subject: More talented friends and other questions
In-Reply-To: <dl3hhg+kbm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3ic4+a471@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142911

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbursztynski" <greatraven at h...>
wrote:

> As for the last question, I can answer that because I have just been 
> listening to Stephen Fry reading HBP, chapter 23 is the one 
> concerned. DD tells Harry exactly what happened with the diary 
> horcrux - Lucius didn't know the horcrux was in there and just 
> thought he'd kill a few birds with one stone. LV didn't know his 
> horcrux had been destroyed till afterwards and was livid with 
> Lucius, who is probably glad to be safe in Azkaban. I found this 
> particularly interesting, because it has to be Snape who gave DD 
> that information and probably Lucius who went to Snape for sympathy 
> over the matter (who knows? A glass of expensive wine at Malfoy 
> Manor and a good whinge... "I dunno, Severus, he never TOLD me he 
> had a horcrux in there, did he? How was I supposed to know?" 
> Interesting, too, to think of the aristocratic Malfoy hanging out 
> with Snape, whom we know now is as working-class as they come, 
> assuming that's his family home at Spinner's End!)
> >
>


I actually envisioned a different scene when I read and listened to
that bit.  I saw the DE's surrounding Voldemort in a circle(shades of
the graveyard scene in GoF).  LV had just summoned all of them
together for their weekly staff meeting (or whatever you wish to call
it :) ).  this is probably after the fiasco at the MoM in OotP and LV
finds out about the diary - and gets very angry(meltdown comes to
mind) with his DE's for allowing this to happen.  And this is probably
the time when LV starts thinking about Draco and what revenge he can
get on Lucius, for not only messing up the retrieval of the prophecy
at the MoM, but mishandling the Diary and allowing it to be destroyed.
 Please note, I stated thinking, not telling his DE's in the meeting.
 The telling comes later.....


Why the big meeting?  Because I don't think LV is the sensitive
manager who would take his follower aside and chastise him/her
privately, as not to embarrass them in front of the other DE's.  The
more public LV's wrath, the more fear he instills in his DE's to NOT
screw up :)

colebiancardi
(who has been in private meetings with the boss about my alleged
misdeeds :)  Not a pretty sight....)







From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 11 23:42:43 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:42:43 -0000
Subject: What saved Harry?
Message-ID: <dl3a9k+s4ub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142912

>Jen: I read Riddle's thoughts upon learning Merope died as somewhat
>removed from any personal connection. Instead of perhaps
>internalizing his mom's death as being his fault, or externalizing
>it and blaming her, he chose instead to focus on the power of 
magic, 
>his obsession and downfall. His interpretation was that magic gives
>one the ultimate power to defeat even death, and therefore his mom
>could not be magical. Even if he was covering up for deep hurt (and
>by then I think his ability to feel such a thing was almost
>completely removed) it was buried quite far below any conscious
>thought.

Orna:
Agree. But exactly because it was buried so far below, he had no 
means of dealing with it, and found himself enacting the mother-love 
issue, instead of comfortably thinking it over in his saloon <g>. 

>Jen: Oh, how I love this idea! Voldemort *would* have learned the
>power of love magic if it happened this way, a crack in his core
>belief that dark magic is always more powerful than love magic. 

Orna:
I think he can have a crack, but fails to acknowledge it, and really 
learn from it. It just leaves some inward trace in him. When Harry 
talks to Riddle in CoS, Riddle gets the point, but immediately plays 
it down. That's essentially Voldermort ? he is unable to learn from 
experience, in this domain. So it might be possible, or even 
probable, that he is shattered in a way, but fails to grasp the 
point. He just goes back to "more of the same" ? meaning ? more 
magic, more accurate hearing of the prophecy, perhaps more wand-
manipulation to prevent the priori incarnatem (I guess, that's why 
Ollivander was kidnapped, perhaps), etc. 

>Jen:
>And I take it you are saying there was a magical consequence for 
that >as well? Perhaps some weakness that will help bring him down 
later on?

Orna:
Haven't thought about it that far, but very happy to follow this 
point. Thank you. And having bursts of loose ideas:
 It makes room for some reasonable place, where Voldermort's 
vulnerability can be located in himself. Can imagine some moment, 
when confronted with himself being mortal, and something else which 
has to connect somehow to this mother-love-issue, he will be in some 
way vulnerable to death.  I don't see him aware or able to accept 
it, but I can see him less powerfully magic, or even unable to 
enforce his magic ? like he got forgetful of this ancient magic, 
like when in GoF he dueled with Harry, he looked afraid when the 
connection was established. I'm sure JKR will have some colorful way 
of putting it.

In Gof, there is some trace revealing, IMO. When Voldermort rises, 
he tells Harry, that his father left his mother, when she told him 
she was a witch. And then he says "
He left her
before I was ever 
born, Potter, and she died
leaving me to be raised in a Muggle 
orphanage
but I vowed to find him
I revenged myself upon him, that 
fool who gave me his name
Tom Riddle "
That's a very emotional outburst, he's not devaluating his mother as 
a witch, but stressing the abandonment (his mother's, his), and 
nearly(?) saying that Riddle sr. was killed, not only because 
Voldermort is ashamed of his muggle father, but as a revenge, for 
leaving him to be raised in a muggle orphanage. You can focus on the 
muggle, but the orphanage is mentioned, his father's (and mother's) 
abandonment is said aloud. And more so ? he mentions his name as Tom 
Riddle. (Quite a nice step towards mortality). No wonder, he gets 
uncomfortable, and adds "Listen to me, reliving family history
Why, 
I'm growing quite sentimental" and then he composes himself, and 
turns to his "real family", the DE, as if detaching himself from 
what he found himself saying. 

I think it can go with the crack in his core belief theory, and with 
magical consequences, beginning to show themselves. 


>KJ writes:
>This is an interesting suggestion and may have something to do with
>the ending along with the fact that he is now sharing blood with 
>Harry.
>This must have some kind of effect for Dumbledore to be pleased 
over >it.

Orna:
I looked it up in GoF, and was struck by Voldermorts hunger (can't 
think of a more appropriate word) to share Harry's mother. That's 
how it jumped to my eyes, now. "I wanted the blood 
for the 
lingering protection his mother once gave him, would then reside in 
my veins, too
"
As Dumbeldore said in the cave, it's very crude, and completely 
misunderstanding the ways love enters the veins, but magically 
speaking, Voldermort might "contaminate" his smooth power-
functioning in some way.


Feels like the more I look at it from this point of view, the less 
powerful and more human (evil, but human) Voldermort becomes as an 
entity. Perhaps the Weasly-twins got it right ? fighting Voldermort 
with humor, might be also a way of mortalizing him.  

Orna












From JLen1777 at aol.com  Sat Nov 12 00:27:56 2005
From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:27:56 EST
Subject: Dumbledore:  treatment of Dursley's and obligations to Harry
Message-ID: <21d.2810a03.30a6910c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142913

 
Lupinlore:
>Why does it place him in such a bad light?   Because it raises the 
> idea that he knew what was going on at the  Dursleys (in fact knew in 
> advance it would go on) and did not intervene  forcefully to put a 
> stop to it, as it was his absolute moral duty to  do.  There is NO, 
> and I repeat, NO, excuse for turning a blind eye  to child abuse. And 
> yes, what was going on at the Dursleys WAS  child abuse and if 
> Dumbledore turned a blind eye and did not intervene  he WAS an 
> accessory thereto.  And no, the safety of the wizarding  world is NOT 
> an excuse and no, the idea that Harry "might" be in danger  somewhere 
> else is NOT an excuse.


 
 
 
Jaimee: (sorry... this is a long post)
 
I have seen some insightful arguments from those who think Dumbledore's  
actions were merited toward the Dursley's, and those who think it was  
reprehensible.  I also understand both sides of the argument:  AliveButAbused!Harry is 
better than Dead!Harry as opposed to the argument  above posted by Lupinlore 
under (Re: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  -  a Balanced Approach).  Each side 
has a decent argument, and I have enjoyed  watching the debate (even if I was 
afraid of getting hit by a stray bludger  meant for someone else) :)
 
But I do wonder why we assume Dumbledore did not try to do more on Harry's  
behalf?  In OotP which is the basis of much of the discussion I have seen  
(along with the 3rd chapter of HBP), Dumbledore says that in his first year at  
Hogwarts, Harry arrived, "neither as happy or as well nourished," as he had  
wanted, which says he had higher hopes for the arrangement than took  place.  
And, he tells Harry that he left a note with Petunia explaining how  important it 
was to protect him through his mother's blood, and (this is my  speculation, 
not canon) I believe he had hoped that, though she took him  grudgingly, she 
would eventually open her heart, as well as her home.   Harry then realizes 
that the howler was also from Dumbledore, which he admits,  but it is not 
explicitly stated whether or not these two points are the ONLY  times Dumbledore 
corresponds with Petunia.  It could be assumed, but as far  as I remember, it is 
not stated outright.
 
Now, if Dumbledore watched Harry "more closely than he could imagine," then  
we can assume he probably knew Harry was not treated well by the Dursley's  
even before his first year, and from what he has said we can assume he felt  
that the charm he placed on Harry, protecting him while he was with Petunia  was 
the truly the only way he thought he could protect Harry  from Voldemort.  
With this in mind (and mind you, this is pure  speculation), what's to say he 
didn't correspond with Petunia to appeal to her  compassion?  Other options could 
have been reporting it to muggle  authorities, who may have placed him in 
another home, breaking the protection he  had with Petunia.  His other recourse 
then, was the MOM.  
 
I believe it possible (not necessarily true, but possible) that he did  
appeal to Fudge or others in the ministry (Scrimgeour?) to "talk" to the  Dursley's 
about their treatment of Harry, and they declined for various reasons  
(because they were muggles, etc...)  THIS could be part of the disagreement  between 
DD and the MOM.  DD may have told them that he found it highly  ludicrous 
that they expected Harry to help them with "public relations," after  years of 
not helping Harry as he had asked.
 
Now I know all of that was highly speculative, but it does not seem beyond  
reason to me.  There are some who would say that DD knows magic and could  have 
resorted to other ways to get Harry better treatment, but what could he  have 
done that would not have made him as bullying and abusive as the  Dursley's?  
After all, others are already criticizing him for his behavior  in Ch. 3 of 
HBP.  Finally, I just want to mention that DD, throughout the  series has been 
a man that leaves choice up to the person (he seems to be an  existentialist 
at heart).  He could have tried to lead Voldemort in a  better direction, but I 
think he ultimately believes people should find their  own way, as I think he 
was hoping the Dursley's would do, and they failed  miserably.  Still, I 
think it's possible he did try other ways to get  Petunia (and maybe Vernon) to 
treat Harry better, but seeing things from Harry's  perspective, we are simply 
unaware.
 
(Again, sorry so long...) and thanks for all the spirited debate, its been  
enjoyable!

Jaimee


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From moonstruck583 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 00:32:11 2005
From: moonstruck583 at yahoo.com (moonstruck583)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:32:11 -0000
Subject: Wands and Horcruxes
Message-ID: <dl3d6b+9d6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142914

I was wondering if anyone had given any thought into the possibility 
of the last two unaccounted-for horcruxes might be Harry and 
Voldemort's wands. I have been dwelling on the theory for some time 
now. 

First, there is the obvious fact that Ollivander has disappeared, his 
wand shop left empty. He was the one who told Harry's wand is 
the "brother" to Voldemort's, each containing a feather from 
Dumbledore's phoenix. 

Second, at the very end of the book, Harry actually looses his wand 
while confronting Snape. I am assuming that he retreived the wand, 
but JKR never does confirm it. 

It would make perfect sense to me, that the horcruxes could very well 
indeed be Harry and Voldemort's wands, although I do not quite 
understand how it could be possible. Dumbledore has theorized that 
Riddle's horcruxes are objects that are of significance to him. It is 
also telling that in the Chamber of Secrets, Riddle reached for 
Harry's wand. Wands are such an important part of a wizard that they 
are often overlooked, which makes them perfect candidates for 
horcruxes.

Is this too far-fetched, or does this theory have some merit? I would 
love to hear some comments on this. 

Moonstruck583








From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Nov 12 02:16:53 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:16:53 -0500
Subject: Standards of writing WAS:Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <dl1cr3+1m9v@eGroups.com>
References: <dl1cr3+1m9v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43755095.3060406@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142915

lupinlore wrote:
> Absolutely and completely incorrect.  There is NO objective standard of 
> good writing.  There are simply standards which have been politically 
> agreed upon for the sake of the convenience of certain communities, and 
> even those shift constantly.  Writing is by its very nature completely 
> subjective, and therefore all judgments thereof are completely 
> subjective.

Bart:
That's a view which is necessary for certain politics to be valid. 
However, scientific testing has been increasingly showing this to be 
invalid; that there are certain characteristics which are hardwired into 
the human brain and nervous system, and many aspects of art are 
considered to be "good" or "bad" based on those characteristics.

Or, more precisely, would Harry Potter have the near-universal appeal it 
appears to have if ideas of art were culturally imposed?

This is not to say that there is one universal standard of good and bad 
writing; more that there are guidelines which point the way.

Virtually all human societies end up with one or more people in 
authority. Therefore, a major theme underlying the Harry Potter novels 
(that of following the rules vs. doing what is right in spite of rules 
against it) is universal, as well as the concept of doing what is right.

Bart






From xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 01:57:13 2005
From: xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com (xxneuman07xx)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:57:13 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl32vu+kbqs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3i5p+fmaj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142916


Ginny43:
> So LV was not lying. He told her to move.  He wasted valuable 
> seconds of his life asking a witch he had no respect for to move.  
> Why?



Possibly he needed her alive?

I've just kind of assumed for a while that Lily pocketed a horcrux
without knowing what it was and didn't tell anyone. He would have
wanted it back, right?

Neuman









From va32h at comcast.net  Sat Nov 12 01:51:22 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:51:22 -0000
Subject: What JKR tells fans about their theories? WAS:Re: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <196.4b7f23d5.30a64853@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dl3hqq+aabp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142917

> szehms:

> JKR will tell fans when theories are off the mark, when asked she 
will not lie or purposefully confuse us, she will tell us that a 
theory is without merit or she won't comment, therefore her "no 
comments" tell fans that they are onto something important.
 

va32h:
On this point, I respectfully disagree. JKR has said in interviews 
that she enjoys the fan speculation, and does not seek to discourage 
it, unless she thinks it is significantly going down the wrong road. 
So her "no comment" is, in my mind, as likely to tell fans that she 
thinks their theory is merely entertaining as it is to indicate that 
the theory is important. 

va32h









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 02:51:58 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:51:58 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl3g1l+i6b4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3lce+7khi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142918

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

> Obviously Voldemort is the A plot.  But B and C plots still follow 
> the same rule. I reitreate, the end of the 2nd act would be an 
> extremely weird place to tie up a plotline.

I guess I'm just not of the opinion that finding out that wow, Snape 
really did kill Dumbledore and he didn't do it for some fuzzy reason 
is necessarily 'tying up the plotline' regarding Snape.  I can see it 
going either way; exploration of the reasons and results of Bad!Snape 
killing Dumbledore, or reconsideration and clearing of Good!Snape 
having to do it.

> As I said in the post, what's missing is the TRANSITION.  The moment
> WHEN the realization hits Dumbleodore.  The 'pleading' would have to
> be moment just after.  

I don't see that fitting into the dramatic pacing of the scene, but I 
also don't see her taking that much time to drop us really into 
Dumbledore's head: it's all about Harry's perceptions thereof, and 
that keeps it moving.

> *furrows brow*.  Do you mean the 'spiky discomfort' of Dumbeldore
> reduced to pleading?  Heck, yeah, I would smooth out that spiky
> dicomfort.  Why introduce an entirely new note into a major 
> character 10 seconds before he dies?  Especially when there's a 
> world of rich, yummy drama left to milk on the guy who's still 
> standing?

Because it's maximally BANG-y (and OotP was lacking in something of 
the BANG department) to *not* get the fanfiction method of having 
everyone spend five to ten pages thinking about what is happening, 
and how it reflects on their past and their emotions, etc.  She 
shocks us with the 'pleading', and then she cuts it off.  There's no 
mitigation.  It plays with raw urgency; the end of the book is nearly 
breathless.  Why inject slower pacing into it?

> Well, that would assume the series was written so the reversal shock
> would mainly hit the 10 percent of her audience who are Snape fans.
> And that to this end, she was willing to have the reversal shock
> bypass, you know, Harry.

Harry's got enough shock of watching his mentor murdered in front of 
him by the man who the mentor insisted in categorically trusting.  We-
the-audience are shocked because we've been going "Nah, we're with 
Hermione, we trust Dumbledore, Snape was obviously lying for Bella's 
benefit" for the entirety of the book.  I'm not saying that I don't 
see the logic for having Harry undergo a reversal, but I don't see it 
as inevitable, more logical, or better writing.  It just takes the 
story a very different place.

This is a very heavily end-loaded series, after all.

> Yeah, but who cares?

Readers, because it's a place where we tend to put ourselves.  We 
trust in Hermione as usually right, and in Dumbledore as Basil 
Exposition and moral center.  Rowling's actually set it up so we're 
tempted, when reading, to go "Oh, Harry--he's always wrong..."  Ergo, 
when he's not, the Destroyer crew does a dance of joy.

> It's not a 'little different'.  It's "once upon a time there was a
> wolf, and the wolf was about to eat a little girl, and then the 
> little girl had lunch".  It doesn't end the sentence.  

I'd argue that it may cause you to re-think the sentence that you 
thought you were reading. :)  If I can use a musical analogy again, 
it's like trying to label some harmonic passages in Strauss.  You 
have one set of loose functional labels that you really like, until 
you realize that you've shifted and you now have to reconsider 
everything that you read before, because it's not going where you 
thought that it was.  [Strauss does this a lot; there's a chord 
series that you can read in, say, three keys--but you move towards a 
cadence in one of them, and the effect is realizing retrospectively 
that's the key you were always pointing towards.  Position-finding.]  
Iser talks about this stuff in _Act of Reading_, how readers have to 
adjust what they thought they knew.  Rowling makes a LOT of use of 
this technique; think about how different it is to re-read the 
earlier books knowing what you know now.  [Puts a different spin on 
the Shack scene in PoA when you know that Snape was a Death Eater, or 
that Legilimency exists, nu?]

-Nora recommends the Metamorphosen for some profitable attempts at 
the above, and goes off to iron her hands now







From AllieS426 at aol.com  Sat Nov 12 04:04:15 2005
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:04:15 -0000
Subject: Felix Felicis (the whim to let Snape pass)
In-Reply-To: <dkoi4l+n5jj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3pjv+mckm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142919

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" <Elvishooked at h...> 
wrote:
<snip>

> After drinking Felix Felicis, Harry simply has a feeling of what 
to 
> do - and everything turns out to be good decisions.

> Did Luna in fact drink from the bottle, too? Im sorry but I 
couldn't 
> find any evidence for or against that.
> 
> <<Snip>>
> 
> p 578 (after the incident with Snape and Flitwick):
> Hermione: '......snipped....but we didn't realise, Harry, we 
didn't 
> realise, we just let Snape go.'
> 
> Were Hermione and Luna reacting the same way Harry did after 
taking 
> in Felix Felicis? Did they act on a whim that this was the right 
> thing to do - to let Snape go?
> If so - here we have another point to DDM!Snape.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought.
>

And a great one!  I'm not sure if Luna drank from the bottle (I 
don't think she did, at least not that we've been told).  If that 
were the case (Felix made them do it), I suspect Hermione would have 
said something to the effect of, "But I thought it was the right 
thing to do, the Felix made me think so..."  That could still 
happen - maybe an early-on discussion in the next book.

Allie








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 04:05:57 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:05:57 -0000
Subject: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?
In-Reply-To: <dku6rv+itc4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3pn5+1dfc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142920

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But here's the crux, IMO.  I don't think Dumbledore *wanted* to 
> > be polite. 

> >>Valky:
> You're right, that is the crux of this, because I most definitely
> think that he was trying to be polite. If nothing else the        
> dandiness of his letter to Harry and small talk with Vernon brims 
> with his efforts to be thoughtfully polite.

Betsy Hp:
I don't think we can connect Dumbledore's letter to Harry with his 
behavior with Vernon.  In fact, his letter to Harry was rude to 
Vernon, not matter how polite it was to Harry.  Dumbledore undercut 
Vernon's (and Petunia's) role as head of household by by-passing him 
and going straight to Harry.  [Point of clarity: I'm not arguing 
that Dumbledore was *wrong* to by-pass Vernon, or at least, he was 
only wrong according to rules of etiquette.]

[Aside to Geoff from message #142772: If the Weasley's had taken 
Harry without the Dursleys' permission in GoF, they would have also 
broken the rules of etiquette.  And again, I'm not saying that this 
would have been a wrong action, just not a polite one.] 

And again, his polite small-talk was an illusion.  He wasn't trying 
to put Vernon at ease or find a point of connection, as Arthur 
Weasley did in GoF.  Dumbledore was establishing his dominance, 
which is really not proper house-guest behavior <g>. He uses a  
veneer of politeness to cause the Dursleys to cower and submit.

He mentions the flowers have grown from his last visit.  So he's 
reminding Vernon that he was the one to dump Harry on them and 
change their lives for the worst.  Not a very polite reminder there. 
He brings up his correspondence to Petunia.  A howler.  That 
chastised her.  Again, not harkening back to pleasant things.  And 
he calls Dudley by name, without waiting for an introduction (unlike 
Arthur in GoF).  Which strikes me as a threat.  "I know who your 
child is, so it's best not to anger me."

And then he takes over.  Resorting to physical force to get the 
Dursleys to sit (not comfortably, I'm sure - all three squeezed onto 
one couch), he sets a bit of magic loose on them and then ignores 
them to talk to Harry.

> >>Valky:
> OTOH I don't think that the canon really supports that Dumbledore
> intended to beat the Durselys over te head with glasses of mead.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Doesn't excuse anything, to my mind.  It'd be like someone's dog 
jumping all over someone trying to lick them.  It's not that the 
owner *intended* the dog to act this way, but it's their dog and 
they are responsible for what the dog is doing.  It's Dumbledore's 
glasses.  That they automatically assult folks who ignore them 
(which I actually buy as very WW <g>) doesn't give Dumbledore a 
pass.  He should have controlled them.

> >>Debbie (message #142776)
> <snip>
> One of the narrative functions served by the Dursleys is to serve
> as the butt of humor. It takes many forms, and it usually works   
> very well.
> Often, they provide laughs through their own words; they victimise
> themselves (just reread the first chapter of PS/SS).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think you've really hit the nail here, Debbie.  Because that's the 
difference between the visit by Arthur Weasly in GoF and the visit 
by Dumbledore in HBP, IMO.  In GoF the Dursleys did it to 
themselves.  Arthur behaved as he should have, and in comparison the 
Dursleys looked like buffoons.  Especially when Arthur was shocked 
that they didn't respond to Harry's goodbye.  It really brought home 
the Dursley's pettiness for me.

> >>Debbie:
> However, the particular form of humor JKR is employing here,       
> comeuppance humor, is not universally appreciated. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I've never been a big fan.  Especially when there's such a huge 
power differential in play.  Dumbledore could do anything he pleased 
to the Dursleys and they couldn't do a thing to stop him.

Take the movie, "A Christmas Story".  In the movie, the young 
protagonist, Ralphie, has to deal with a bully who beats him up just 
about every day after school.  I believe the bully is a bit older 
than Ralphie; he's definitely bigger and stronger.  One day 
Ralphie's had enough and he jumps the bully and actually beats him 
in a fist fight.  That scene works for me.  I don't feel too much 
sympathy for the bully.  But if Ralphie's *father* had decided to 
beat up the bully I'd have hated it, because a grown man beating up 
a twelve year old kid is disturbing.

For the same reason the most powerful wizard in the WW intimidating 
a Muggle family and physically accosting them with magic is 
disturbing to me, even if they were bullies.

Betsy Hp






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 12 05:28:37 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:28:37 -0000
Subject: Blood magic v Love magic
In-Reply-To: <dl3643+jv3o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3ui5+18af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142921

> a_svirn:
> I daresay. But should it be this different? This is the question 
> that really bothers me. All the other examples of the "higher"
> magic that metaphorically, symbolically etc represent essential
> human relationships are pretty straightforward in this respect.
> Fidelius charm can only work if you are loyal. If you are not it
> fails. We don't know how precisely the life debt thing works, but
> I have a hunch that the obligation exists only if you recognise
> it. The magic of the Unbreakable Vow can only be invoked if you 
> are making a commitment, etc. And yet with Love the most important
> of all things muggle and magical "just feeling love" suddenly
> becomes less important, than being a blood relation. 

Jen: I definitely get what you are saying here, why did Dumbledore 
choose to protect Harry with the bond of blood, the 'strongest 
shield I could give you' when the story seems to be saying the 
opposite--trust in love over blood, blood is meaningless for who a 
person will become. Logically that would mean someone who loves 
Harry could protect him better than Petunia. 

(As an aside before plunging forward, the UV and Fidelius aren't 
classified as ancient magic and so I'm not really addressing them 
here. I think they *are* straightforward and the mechanism for each 
is somewhat explained, unlike the magic classified as ancient magic.)

Regarding blood, there's an unanswered question in the story and I 
don't think it's some huge hole but the usual vacuum of plot 
secrecy. Because blood seems to be playing two different roles: 
First we have the introduction of bloodlines in COS, blood prejudice 
and the like. Then we have the curious details related to 
metaphorical blood, the power flowing through a person's veins, the 
life force. 

Voldemort represents the taker of blood, a person who will drain 
another's life force: 

1) First re: Lily, 'he shed her blood' according to Dumbledore in 
OOTP.
2) He commanded Wormtail to take Harry's blood 'forcibly'.
3) In the cave Harry discovers one of Voldemort's crude beliefs is 
that causing an enemy to spill blood 'weakens' him.

Lily & Harry are the shedders of blood, willing to give up their 
life force for another:

1) Lily's sacrifice for Harry.
2) Harry giving up his blood to Voldemort (this wasn't voluntary I 
know, but his blood was taken to give LV life so I think it's 
meaningful for where JKR is headed)
3) Harry offers his own blood so Dumbledore wouldn't have to cut 
himself.
4) Harry gives the blood tribute to the archway to save Dumbledore's 
strength, i.e. life.

Connecting this idea to the blood protection, I think there is a 
deeper meaning there, that Lily's life force flows in Petunia and in 
Harry. If Petunia were to deny Harry 'the place where his mother's 
blood dwells' she would essentially be separating him from his life 
force. And Voldemort taking Harry's blood *connects* LV to this life 
force, which won't confer any benefits on him I'm certain. Not the 
way he hopes, anyway.

Basically, I have faith that blood can matter and love can matter 
and somehow they are connected, that the blood protection won't 
prove to be this glaring 'what??' issue in the end. Given the fact 
we don't understand the gleam, or why Harry's blood is 'valuable' 
according to DD, or the importance of a life debt (saving another's 
blood from being shed?), JKR probably has a great plan that will be 
much more believable than my suggestions!

Optimistic!Jen







From erikog at one.net  Sat Nov 12 07:05:32 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:05:32 -0000
Subject: Lily, Snape, Potions
Message-ID: <dl447s+eqgb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142922

Sydney writes:

>I would say, from the evidence of the text, that it's 'likely' the
>other way around:  Snape was Lily's guide in Potions.  Slughorn
>compares Harry to his mother because he's a NATURAL, like Lily....


I'm just popping in to point out one problem with taking any observance 
of Slughorn's on face value--his perceptive ability is *terrible*. He seems 
not to have realized, at any point, that Harry was relying on an outside 
text and not his own abilities. (And given that Harry couldn't have that
 book in his hands all the time, *surely*, there were moments when it 
was plain as day that Harry was not a potions genius--either the 
classroom, in conversation, etc.) To me this is something that said a *lot* 
about Slughorn as a teacher, that he couldn't spot a kid submitting 
non-original work. (I don't mean to write as if what Harry's doing is 
plagiarism per se--which Snape certainly thinks he's doing!--but 
Harry's at the very least *not* turning in the expected work, and any 
teacher worth his/her chalk should 1.) spot it and 2.) be QUITE 
certain there's natural genius involved before praising it.) I do not
 think for a second that Snape would've missed a kid cribbing in
 his class, even if the source hadn't been his own book. 

Slughorn also suffers from a dim memory. If the ideas of the 
HBP are Snape's, and if Snape turned in his work to reflect 
the best of his abilities, then Slughorn should've known 
Snape's original thinking when he saw it. Yes, Lily might 
have been influenced by Snape's ideas (or vice-versa), but 
the real problem is that Slughorn graded Snape and *still* 
doesn't see that Harry's copying Snape's ideas. (This is 
particularly striking since Slug and Snape are now 
colleagues, and you'd think taking back the classroom 
from your own student would make you remember him 
a bit better. At least make you think of him as *the*
obvious Potions genius in his year.)

 (Maybe Snape was too poor and anti-social to be worthy of 
SlugClub status? Regardless. Doesn't say much about 
Slughorn that he'd forget Snape's work.)

Anyway, to get back to the question of who-guided-whom: 
Neither. We have info to suggest Snape's a genius in 
Potions, and that Lily, at the least, was naturally gifted
and quite skilled. We have no reason to believe 
either needed (particular) assistance. If anything,
I tend to believe they were lab partners (because can't you see
 Lily honing in on poor lonely teen!Snape when it came time
 to choose partners) who assisted one another in a shared
 sense of academic curiosity and drive.

Krista






From erikog at one.net  Sat Nov 12 07:07:38 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:07:38 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Petunia
Message-ID: <dl44bq+kfeg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142923

Responding to two small posts together:

 hpfan_mom wrote:
>If anyone has the willpower to squelch down magical talent until it 
>just about disappears, to clean it out of her life, so to speak, 
>it's Petunia.
<snip>
>It would also be a nice parallel if the magic Petunia performs is in 
>the Battle of Privet Drive to protect her son.

Since "love" is the key word of the entire series, and if Petunia has one 
motivation in life it's her son, I think it is safe to say that if Dudley is in
dire threat, any magic in Petunia *would* come to the fore.

(This was one of the major reasons I originally fell in love with HP,
that the "magic" really just comes back to love, pure and simple.)

Quoted from sistermagpie:

>Basically, to me it seems like the problem is this: Rowling started 
>out with a fairy-tale/Roald Dahl idea so Harry has terrible 
>parents.  Unfortunately, due to her plot, the magical mentor 
>character was also the person engineering his early abuse.  It's the 
>mixing of two genres, I think, that's causing a problem. 

To me, the problem with Dumbledore is that he represents an ideal
 (the epitome of goodness) and we all want to believe he's 
all-knowing/all-powerful; that he could allow such abuse 
just runs entirely counter to what we believe of his character. 
Actually (just thinking aloud here), I don't consider myself 
an overtly religious person, but the thread about Dumbledore 
and abused Harry really, really, really made me think about 
the ages-old debate of how an all-powerful, all-knowing, 
loving God can let bad things happen to good people. And
since I can't resolve that in a nifty email, I'm just going to
send this thought bubble out to y'all!




Krista







From lake4fam at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 12 07:19:04 2005
From: lake4fam at earthlink.net (dittanymorgan)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:19:04 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore calls a spade a spade
Message-ID: <dl4518+e23d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142924

As did many others, I quite enjoyed reading Prof Dumbledore telling 
the Dursleys precisely what he thought of their actions.  They have 
failed Dudley, creating a flawed human being, and the Headmaster is 
the only person who ever said so in such  unambiguous words.  Notes 
from the elementary school and from Smeltings were read through the 
lens of denial.  That the Headmaster cast his actions in the mold of 
politeness, while being insufferably impolite, is a quintessentially 
Victorian way of doing things. (My grandmother was born in 1894.  If 
she didn't like you, she was cooly {coldly} formal with you.)
So, to all of you who castigate the Head for bullying, I say, "Tosh.'

Namari?






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sat Nov 12 05:08:18 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:08:18 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl37pc+a4r5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3tc2+gh3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142925

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> The larger objection is a wavering, agonizing, side-switching Snape is
> just such a massive focus-puller.  It would make Snape, not Harry,
> making all the critical choices and going through the most interesting
>  emotions at the end of the book.  Story-wise I'm much happier having
> Snape running down a pretty clear, straightforward track, and Harry
> doing all the mind-changing.  For this reason I would prefer
> Evil!Snape to conflicted!Snape, because much as I'd rather read a book
> about Snape, this ain't it.
>

Would it be such a focus puller?  I would personally find DDM!Snape to 
be much more intrusive and overshadowing and to threaten to make the 
books about Snape, the noble and sacrificing superspy.  OFH!Snape, and 
particularly Grey Snape, on the other hand, does no such thing.

I really like Jen's idea of Grey Snape.  This can be seen as a version 
of either DDM!Snape (a DDM!Snape who has fallen) or OFH!Snape (an OFH!
Snape who honestly thinks that Dumbledore is in the right but who, when 
push comes to shove, hasn't the courage to place right over easy).  If 
you will, Grey Snape lives in the area where a "high" version of OFH!
Snape overlaps a "low" version of DDM!Snape.

As such, Grey Snape is an intrinsically weak man in some respects.  He 
has neither the ruthless Machiavellian will of some OFH! models nor the 
firm nobility of character often attributed to DDM!  He made a huge 
blunder, tried to attain redemption, then blundered again.  He hasn't 
the ability to dominate or overshadow anything, once you understand 
what he is all about.  Like most bullies, he is essentially a coward 
who cannot control his own emotions, and deep inside he knows it.

Now Harry is faced with the problem of what to do with a man who he 
believes to be evil and menacing who turns out to be weak and 
pathetic.  Where oh where is the villain he set out to destroy?  How 
was he replaced with this pathetic, childish creature who allows his 
own emotions to repeatedly be his undoing (and isn't that a delicious 
irony)?  Will he kill Snape and put him out of everyone's misery, or 
will he remember the nobility of Dumbledore, and like DD forgive a man 
who is not a supervillain or a superspy, but a wretch who has let 
himself be suborned by his own emotional urges as surely as the petty 
thief Dung Fletcher or the harmless blowhard Stan Shunpike?  Will Harry 
be able, like Dumbledore, to let Snape have a chance to prove himself 
once more?  Will he be able to see the "latent good qualities" in this 
pitiful, self-hating man who has destroyed his own world through his 
cruelty and nastiness and greed and cowardice? Once he understands who 
is the adult and who is the child, will he let Snape have a chance at 
redemption?  In that moment, will Harry the adult allow Snape, the 
pathetic and broken child, to know hope once again?  

And will he let himself feel a little sharp humor of his own at the 
humiliation and desperation to which his enemy has been reduced, having 
to take crumbs of hope out of Harry's hand?  Will, in the end, Harry 
like Frodo have grown "wise, yes wise and cruel" as he sends Snape to 
almost certain doom knowing that his redemption springs from the 
forbearance of a man he once despised as beneath his shoes?

Now how in the world does that take the focus off Harry?


Lupinlore










From sheria_mccool at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 07:08:00 2005
From: sheria_mccool at yahoo.com (sheria_mccool)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:08:00 -0000
Subject: Wands and Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <dl3d6b+9d6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl44cg+7hma@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142926

Although I do agree that there is a possibility that Voldemorts' wand is a Horcrux, I do not think that there is a chance that Harry wand is one. As Olivander said in the first book HPSS "The wand chooses the wizard". I think that Harry, and every one else for that matter, would have recognized the difference in Harrys' ability to cast spells if his wand had been switched. Also for a Horcrux to be made there has to be a death. While Harry was in the chamber there was no one actually killed, except the incomplete memory of Voldemort being brought back though the Diary.  So even though "Tom Riddle" did have Harry's wand, he did not have the means to make a Horcrux at that time. 

I am more entitled to believe that Voldemorts' wand is a Horcrux than Nagini. I do not see Voldemort making a living creature a Horcrux. To me that is just taking to much of a chance. Living things die, and the eternal question would have to be `Where was Voldemorts' wand all the years that he did not actually have a body?'.  Someone had to have kept it for him, or he had to have stashed it somewhere. Seeing that Voldemort "Died" in a sense at James and Lilly's hideout, who would have taken it and held it in safe keeping for him all these years. 

Well I those are my thoughts on the matter.

sheria_mccool






From ellecain at yahoo.com.au  Sat Nov 12 08:39:14 2005
From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:39:14 -0000
Subject: Tower scene reactions about Snape; different sympathies
In-Reply-To: <dl3g2f+ucg3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl49ni+gn6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142927

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
>
> KJ:
> >     One of the reasons for being completely dumb-struck at this
> scene in 
> > the tower is that I understood the fact of Snape's guilt 
immediately
> and 
> > what that decision had just cost him. [snip] I couldn't believe 
that
> JKR had done it to him. 
> > Bad enough that she made him ugly, greasy, and nasty, now she 
removes 
> > any chance of redemption other than at the cost of his life. I'm 
sorry, 
> > but I find that I can live without Sirius, the loss of 
Dumbledore was 
> > quite bearable, and I'm quite looking forward to the demise of
> Volemort, 
> > even at the expense of Harry. I really feel sorry for Snape.:)
> 

Sydney:
> Dude.  The first thing I said to myself when I closed the book was,
> "Oh my God.  Poor Snape."  I think it must have been what Sirius 
fans
> felt at the end of OoP-- "you mean he just got more and more 
depressed
> and then he DIED?!"  I gotta hand it to JKR-- she is simply 
rutheless
> in putting her characters through the worst things she can think 
of.
>

Elyse: At the risk of this just being a "me too" post, I 'll say 
that I agree completely. This was my reaction precisely at the end 
of HBP. I was horrified at DD's death and while I felt for Harry and 
Dumbledore and Draco in that scene, the "Severus, please" made me 
feel that Dumbledore ordered his death. I felt that Snape was 
*forced* to take the action (UV notwithstanding) that he did.
I felt so so very sorry for him, and hoped I would never find myself 
in that position, ever.

As Sherry said in another post, this exemplifies our different ways 
of
reading the same passages, the same words, the same images, and yet 
coming out of it with wildly opposing reactions.
According to me (and I am not qualified in any way to talk about 
literature, mind you) this is the best thing about literature, the 
best thing about fiction and novels in general.The very fact that we 
can come away with a variety of impressions and take our own 
different interpretations from any one scene or one book shows the 
inherent beauty of writing fiction. The basic reader reactions being 
so strong and so different in the tower scene is IMO proof that 
Rowling's writing is powerful and has immense vitality.

I think this primary reaction is the determinant for the 
attachment we have towards the various DDM, OFH ESE Snape scenarios.
If you felt that what Snape had done was because he was ordered to 
do or had no other choice, and sympathised with him, felt sorry for 
him, at that pivotal scene then I think one leans towards DDM! Snape.
I cant be sure of course, this is me making up a theory.

On the other hand, if your primary reaction was that Snape's actions 
were a base betrayal (as they may very well be)  and you were 
screaming for Snape's blood, and sympathising with Harry more in 
that scene then I think one would lean towards an ESE!Snape scenario.
(Correct me if I'm wrong all you ESE!Snapers)

But there is more to it than that. I think our basic reactions to 
the tower scene were coloured by our preconcieved notions of Snape 
from the earlier books. I entered HBP with the conviction that Snape 
was firmly on the side of good, and thus I sympathised with him in 
the tower scene. This is not to say that I didnt feel for Harry. I 
felt terrible at his helplessness there and as for Draco, my heart 
went out to him.Dumbledore's last moments reasoning with Draco were 
simply wonderful.

Perhaps my rose coloured expectations of Snape coloured my 
judgements in HBP. But after being thrown in doubt about about those 
loyalties after reading innumerable ESE! and OFH! posts, I still 
retain my impression that Snape is on the side of good. However hard 
I try to read that scene as ESE or OFH, I still come back to DDM.
I accept the possibility of Snape being ESE or OFH but I am in no 
way convinced.
 
This sympathy or belief in Snape naturally triggered the
"JKR is so mean, how could she do that to him!" reaction.
And I do think she is callous about the deaths of some characters.
We saw a glimpse of her ruthless cruel side in GoF when Cedric died, 
and then she upped the level a bit with her shock killing of Sirius 
in OOTP. This is hopefully as far as it will get, but looking at 
the "Harry may not live to see the end of the series" hints she 
keeps dropping, I doubt it.

I'm not saying JKR *is* ruthless in real life. Nor do I believe she 
is cruel or callous. She did supposedly cry after she killed 
Sirius...right? I am just saying that this is the logical natural 
reaction of sympathising with the characters. It shows deep reader 
engagement. And my anxiety for Snape's future is what led me to 
reimmerse myself in HP fandom.(I had dabbled a bit after GoF but 
then gave it up) I recall a fabulous post by Elkins, titled Coherence
in the recommended posts that explains my anxiety over certain 
characters, but I'll be damned if I can find it now)

Elyse, who really just tried to explain her DDM convictions by 
linking them to her first HBP reaction, but ended up rambling 
instead.(my apologies if you made it through to the end)










From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Nov 12 05:03:26 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:03:26 -0500
Subject: Young female professors
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAwGF5D/j6Yk2V7KjmpxTpJwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142928

>>Goldenrod:
> Other suspects are any younger female Professor at Hogwarts, these 
> would include possibly Professors Vector and Sinstra and I 
> suppose you could not exclude Trelawney.
<<<


What about Prof. Sprout or Mme. Hooch; or even Nurse Pomfrey?  The impression I get is they they're considerably younger than McG. & Flitwick.


Bruce






From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Nov 12 06:01:42 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:01:42 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAASvhDGeLZkmapofd2RS9fwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142929

a_svirn:
"What kind of example is this? Lady Catharine manners are appalling 
and Mrs. Bennett is universally regarded as a very vulgar person, 
both designing and encroaching.  Besides, you yourself say that Lady 
Catharine's manners are bad, so how does it follow, that Dumbledore 
is well-mannered? "

Lady C. and Mrs. B. both violate the SPIRIT of good manners, but neither one (at
least in this instance) violates the LETTER of the code.  This was the first
example that came to mind; I'm sure if I had my books here I could find some
better ones.  The point is that it is possible to not break--although perhaps
severely bend--the code in such a way that one can deliver a fairly stinging
rebuke to the other party in such a way that she/he/they can't respond in kind
without putting themselves even more in the wrong, which is exactly what DD
does.  

Does he break down the door? No.  Does he turn the Dursleys into frogs. No.
Does he scream, yell, swear, or call them ugly names?  No.  Does he harm them in
any way?  No.  Did he even persist in staying after he was told to go away?  No.

He makes them sit on a comfy sofa (shades of Monty Python's Spanish
Inquisition!) and offers them refreshment--that they do not choose to take it is
their choice. I think DD showed great restraint, as a matter of fact.  Petunia
had promised to raise Harry as her own son; she did not.  That DD does not turn
her into a worm shows his forbearance; he only makes her feel like one.  And
nobody ever died of embarrassment or humiliation.  Vernon and Dudley have
bullied Harry all his life; now they get bullied back, but again, they will take
no lasting harm from it.  And they *may*--unlikely, but *possible* learn
something from the process.  Petunia is ashamed of herself; shame can be good IF
it motivates one to avoid the shameful behavior in the future.  Dudley seems for
the first time in his life to be actually THINKING about himself and the
circumstances of his upbringing; now, too much thinking probably gives Dudley a
headache, but he may well learn something from the evening's experience.

One may argue that DD treats the Dursleys with disrespect, but even granting
that, respect must be earned, and none of them have done anything to earn DD's
respect.  The Dursleys are contemptible; therefore there is nothing wrong in
treating them with contempt.  That DD treats them as well as he does is a sign
of his magnanimity.
 

Bruce






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 12 12:06:52 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:06:52 -0000
Subject: Young female professors
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAwGF5D/j6Yk2V7KjmpxTpJwEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dl4lss+f81n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142930

Bruce wrote: 
> What about Prof. Sprout or Mme. Hooch; or even Nurse Pomfrey?  The 
impression I get is they they're considerably younger than McG. & 
Flitwick.



Potioncat:
I double checked at the Lexicon.

Hooch has grey hair. Her conversation about broom types suggests she 
is an older witch. (I hesitate to use elder.)

Madam Pomfrey was on staff at Hogwarts when Snape was a student.

It doesn't say in the Lexicon, but I think Sprout has grey hair.

So I'd say all these witches are older than Snape. 

McGonagall on the other hand, has black hair. Of course while grey 
makes us think "old", black could make us think "bottle". 











From va32h at comcast.net  Sat Nov 12 02:01:23 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:01:23 -0000
Subject: More talented friends and other questions
In-Reply-To: <dl3hhg+kbm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3idj+keqe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142931

ginny343 wrote:
> "He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a 
> simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends.  He is 
> mediocre to the last degree . . . " 
<snip>
> I wonder what Snape REALLY thinks?  

va32h here: 
I think that Snape wants to believe that Harry is mediocre 
(say something often enough, you can convince yourself it's true).


ginny343: 
> -Who exactly are the more talented friend"s"?  Obviously 
> Hermione is very talented.  But who else?  Ron helped in PS with 
> the chess game, and I think we all hope to see him use his 
> logic/battle skills in the future, but how else have we seen 
> him "talented"?  

va32h:
Dumbledore is Harry's most talented friend. Lupin, Sirius, 
Tonks, Mad-Eye are also those that I would count as talented friends 
who have helped Harry in the past. 


ginny343: 
> Other questions:
> Does Snape walk around 24/7 practicing occlumency?  In PS/SS, 
> when Harry was with Quirrel/LV in front of the mirror, LV stated 
> that Harry was lying, even before Quirrel took off the turban.  
> Was he just guessing?  Was LV able to practice legilimency that 
> whole year when he was part of Quirrel? 

va32h: 
hmmm. No idea! Perhaps Snape is so used to shutting himself 
off from others that he is in auto-occlumency mode. Snape does say 
that eye contact is essential in Legillimency; perhaps Snape and 
Quirrel were avoiding each other (Quirrell has as much reason to 
hide his mind as Snape does).


ginny343:
> On the other hand, what exactly was Lucius trying to accomplish 
> when he gave Ginny Riddle's diary?  Did he know what it would do?  

va32h:
My understanding is that Lucius wanted to discredit Arthur Weasley, 
by having his daughter bring such a dark and dangerous object into 
the school. I am sure that Lucius knew the diary could cause havoc 
in some form, but I am sure that he didn't know it was a horcrux. As 
Dumbledore said, Lucius would not have treated it so carelessly in 
that case. 


va32h








From zehms at aol.com  Sat Nov 12 12:18:09 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:18:09 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not kill Lily?
Message-ID: <192.4cecda79.30a73781@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142932

colebiancardi wrote:  
If there was a Snape & Lily connection, why does DD tell Harry that the reason why Snape turned is not Harry's business to know?  I believe it was either in GoF or OotP.  Harry's parents ARE his business and any connections with his mother or father should 
be revealed to him.  

Maybe the reason why Voldemort stated to Harry that Lily need not 
have died is simple - he didn't need her death.  The object of 
Voldemort's desire was Harry that night - not James or Lily.  James 
was already protecting/fighting back - Voldemort got rid of him; 
James was an obstacle.  Lily was not fighting back - she was holding?
in front of? Harry.  All Voldemort wanted was that baby - to destroy 
Harry.  If Lily stepped aside, it was no skin off of LV's teeth to 
let her live.  He didn't think she was much of a threat to his power-
and she would probably die anyway in the long run, if she continued 
to work for the Order of the Phoenix  She refused, got in the way, 
and she died.  

At any rate, why would Voldemort want to reward or give favors to his DE's in the matter of "love"?  Regardless if Snape's feelings for Lily were platonic or sexual, it is love and Voldemort doesn't 
understand it, doesn't get it, and certainly(IMHO) wouldn't reward 
any of his DE's with it. just doesn't make sense.  Also, LV is a liar to boot.  Perhaps he was lying.  And Rowling is just throwing us nothing but a chicken bone :)



 
Szehms Replies:

DD would not reveal Snape's reason for repentance because the reason is so deeply personal that DD feeld it is not he who should reveal it to Harry.  If Snape became a double agent for reasons related to his feelings towards Lily, this would be Snape's deepest secret and IMO DD would not, without Snape's approval, reveal something so personal about Snape to Harry. Remeber DD has great respect for Snape, and because I am of the opinion that Snape IS LOYAL to 
DD,  Snape appears to be DD's closest confidant (along with than Harry)  in HBP.  

Simply put as the story of Snape's repentance is not related to the Horcrux search and destroy mission, DD did not feel it was vital information to reveal to Harry, nor did he feel it was his place to reveal that information.

Regarding 'Lily's choice' as unimportant:

Again I make this point, If her choice is unimportant why does JKR 
mysteriously refuse to answer this question?  LV HAS NEVER BEFORE allowed a victim the opportunity to walk away, and JKR tells fans she cannot reveal this answer...I think it is clear that there is indeed a revealing answer to this question 'Why let Lily live?' now IMO LV was manipulated by Snape.

I realize many fans WANT to believe Snape "is evil" and do not want to consider the complexity of his character (the perpetual red Herring, the anti-hero) therefore, they do not support the above opinions, but regardless of one's feelings about Snape, JKR's refusal to answer this important question and her directing fans to ask themselves "why let Lily Live" is too vital a clue to be 
overlooked-and IMO not just a chicken bone.

szehms






From va32h at comcast.net  Sat Nov 12 02:24:57 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:24:57 -0000
Subject: Wands and Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <dl3d6b+9d6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl3jpp+jlje@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142933

moonstruck583 wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had given any thought into the 
> possibility of the last two unaccounted-for horcruxes might be 
> Harry and Voldemort's wands. 
<snip> 
> Second, at the very end of the book, Harry actually looses his 
> wand while confronting Snape. I am assuming that he retreived the 
> wand, but JKR never does confirm it. 
> 
> It would make perfect sense to me, that the horcruxes could very 
> well indeed be Harry and Voldemort's wands, although I do not 
> quite understand how it could be possible. 



Harry does find his wand. Don't have my book for the quote, but to 
paraphrase, Harry is scrambling among twigs, and finds his wand just 
as Snape has made it past the gates and apparated. Harry then helps 
Hagrid extinguish the fire in his hut.

A wand has plenty of magical properties of its own - I don't know if 
it could be a Horcrux; and there is the question of when Voldemort 
would have access to a wand that came from the depths of Ollivanders 
shop. Or why the wand would have been significant to Voldemort 
before it was Harry's wand. 

va32h









From muellem at bc.edu  Sat Nov 12 13:38:21 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:38:21 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl4qr6+aoad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl4r8d+njnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142935

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, zehms at a... wrote:
> >
> > colebiancardi wrote:  
> > If there was a Snape & Lily connection, why does DD tell Harry that
> the reason why Snape turned is not Harry's business to know?  I
> believe it was either in GoF or OotP.  Harry's parents ARE his
> business and any connections with his mother or father should 
> > be revealed to him.  
> > 
> > Maybe the reason why Voldemort stated to Harry that Lily need not 
> > have died is simple - he didn't need her death
> <big snip of my own post>
> 
> > At any rate, why would Voldemort want to reward or give favors to
> his DE's in the matter of "love"?  Regardless if Snape's feelings for
> Lily were platonic or sexual, it is love and Voldemort doesn't 
> > understand it, doesn't get it, and certainly(IMHO) wouldn't reward 
> > any of his DE's with it. just doesn't make sense.  Also, LV is a
> liar to boot.  Perhaps he was lying.  And Rowling is just throwing us
> nothing but a chicken bone :)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Szehms Replies:
> > 
> > DD would not reveal Snape's reason for repentance because the reason
> is so deeply personal that DD feeld it is not he who should reveal it
> to Harry.  If Snape became a double agent for reasons related to his
> feelings towards Lily, this would be Snape's deepest secret and IMO DD
> would not, without Snape's approval, reveal something so personal
> about Snape to Harry. Remeber DD has great respect for Snape, and
> because I am of the opinion that Snape IS LOYAL to 
> > DD,  Snape appears to be DD's closest confidant (along with than
> Harry)  in HBP.  
> 
> colebiancardi: I agree with the last sentence, that Snape appears to
> be DD's closest confident.  However, DD does tell Harry that Snape
> felt remorse after James & Lily died - but that cannot be the reason.
>  Snape turned before they died.  So, if Snape's repentance is because
> he loved an already married woman with a small child, I don't know how
> DD would have taken that.  It is an extremely self-centered reason to
> turn.   What I mean by self-centered is that if that was the reason,
> Snape does not understand WHY Voldemort is the wrong side and he never
> will.  To join in with the Order of the Phoenix and spy because he has
> the hots for someone in the Phoenix who will never be his, is, well,
> sappy.  And then Lily dies.  What is keeping Snape at DD's side?  His
> girl is dead, his old master is gone - why not leave the Order? Others
> did....they rebanded at the end of GoF, but they went on with their
> lives.  
> 
> > 
> > Simply put as the story of Snape's repentance is not related to the
> Horcrux search and destroy mission, DD did not feel it was vital
> information to reveal to Harry, nor did he feel it was his place to
> reveal that information.
> > 
> 
> colebiancardi: Really?  If that is Snape's repentance, Harry needs to
> know that.  He needs to know that Snape DID care about someone in his
> family and why DD trusts him on this one so much.  At the end of HBP,
> Harry doesn't believe, as he misunderstood Dumbledore, that Snape was
> sorry about his parents death - Harry stated that Snape didn't think
> his mother was worth a damn.   DD knows about the fiasco the year
> earlier with Snape & Harry's lessons.  You would think, at this point,
> he would mention it to Harry, as he is now older and could have
> handled it.   Also, what I mean by misunderstood, Harry thinks that
> his parent's death is the reason for Snape's repentance, which we know
> isn't true - Snape turned prior to that event.
> 
> > Regarding 'Lily's choice' as unimportant:
> > 
> > Again I make this point, If her choice is unimportant why does JKR 
> > mysteriously refuse to answer this question?  LV HAS NEVER BEFORE
> allowed a victim the opportunity to walk away, and JKR tells fans she
> cannot reveal this answer...I think it is clear that there is indeed a
> revealing answer to this question 'Why let Lily live?' now IMO LV was
> manipulated by Snape.
> 
> colebiancardi:  JKR tells fans she cannot reveal the answer to A LOT
> of questions and theories.  She only debunks the ones she doesn't care
> for - like the Snape is a vampire one.  However, just because she
> doesn't confirm or deny a theory, doesn't mean she uses it.   Another
> poster had stated this fact as well.  JKR likes fans to speculate
> about theories.  Doesn't mean she thinks they are right or wrong. 
> 
> > 
> > I realize many fans WANT to believe Snape "is evil" and do not want
> to consider the complexity of his character (the perpetual red
> Herring, the anti-hero) therefore, they do not support the above
> opinions, but regardless of one's feelings about Snape, JKR's refusal
> to answer this important question and her directing fans to ask
> themselves "why let Lily Live" is too vital a clue to be 
> > overlooked-and IMO not just a chicken bone.
> 
> colebiancardi: Just to clarify - I am a DDM!Snape believer, I don't
> think he is evil in the sense that he is still loyal to Volemort.  I
> do consider the complexity of his character and one thing that is not
> complex for any character is a love-struck man who can't get over a
> woman who was married to his bete noire in school, had a child by that
> same man and died 16 years earlier.   I know that love is a powerful
> thing, but if this was it, the only reason why Snape turned, then he
> could just as easily be turned back to the *dark side* when Lily died.
>  There is nothing holding him to DD's side if that was the case.  This
> love-for-lily theory makes Snape more obsessive and creepy than he
> already is.  
> 
> JKR throws us chicken bones all the time.  I disregard this theory as
> I am not on any of the Snape loves Lily(whether it be platonic or
> romantic) ship.  It would be like stating, 20 years down the road,
> that Draco loved Ginny - if Ginny was dead & Draco became good again
> and no one was talking about those years at Hogwarts.  Why not?  Draco
> - misunderstood, evil.  Ginny - beautiful, popular, smart, everyone
> likes her.  Sound familar?  No?  Why - because we know more about
> these 2 characters & their non-existant relationship together than we
> do about Snape & Lily?  To sully up the waters with a wonderful love
> story of James & Lily with a torrid story of obsession - and it is
> obsession after 16 years - betweeen Snape & Lily is, well, for a lack
> of a better word, EWWW.
> 
> but, that is JMHO
> 
> colebiancardi
> (who would like Snape to turn for more noble reasons that unrequited
love)
>

Reposted as I forgot one more thing...

If Snape was the one who asked for Lily to be spared, how would Lily
take that if she had lived?  Her husband's life wasn't spared - and
Snape is supposed to be on the side of the Order.  She would have
hated Snape for that.  Snape got to pick & choose who HE wanted to
live?  Dumbledore would not approve of that, I think.  And no one has
addressed the fact that would LV even approve of such sappy,
sentimental crud as love coming from his DE?  And why would LV reward
Snape with such a boon?  Wouldn't LV worry that Snape could be turned
by Lily to the side of the good if she lived and was given to Snape?  

just some more thoughts....I deleted my original post, as I wanted to
include these ramblings in with my full post.

colebiancardi







From ornawn at 013.net  Sat Nov 12 14:19:13 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:19:13 -0000
Subject: Tower scene reactions about Snape; different sympathies
Message-ID: <dl4tl1+31j5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142936

>Elyse:
>I think this primary reaction is the determinant for the
>attachment we have towards the various DDM, OFH ESE Snape scenarios.
>If you felt that what Snape had done was because he was ordered to
>do or had no other choice, and sympathized with him, felt sorry for
>him, at that pivotal scene then I think one leans towards DDM! 
Snape.
>I can't be sure of course; this is me making up a theory.

>On the other hand, if your primary reaction was that Snape's actions
>were a base betrayal (as they may very well be) and you were
>screaming for Snape's blood, and sympathizing with Harry more in
>that scene then I think one would lean towards an ESE!Snape 
scenario.
>(Correct me if I'm wrong all you ESE!Snapers)

Orna:
I liked the way of looking at the scene through our primary 
reaction. 
My gut feelings were throughout the books, that Snape is  GDDM =Grey 
DDM ? meaning, that he is basically on the right side, but being a 
tragically conflicted person . Mainly in not being able to connect 
emotionally to anyone, being emotionally childish can't just make 
him DDM.  DD seems the closest person to him, at least in having 
faith in him. But that's not much, because even he, is amused when 
he sees Snape unsettled in PoA, and doesn't really help Snape out of 
his solitude. It's in DD's nature this detachment, and is reflected 
in the debate about DD's not helping enough Harry with the Dursleys. 
Seeing Snape killing DD, I thought ? could I have been so completely 
wrong, making a Dumbeldorish mistake not wanting to believe ESE? Is 
this the reason I don't want to change my point of view? Because 
some change has to be done ? I can't just digest killing an 
alliance, or mentor deliberately as a moral thing ? even if it was 
DD's request. But speaking personally, I would be very disappointed, 
if all the tension and speculations about Snape, come to be ESE 
Snape and me wrong all the way, or DDM Snape, and Harry wrong all 
the way. I would expect something more sophisticated, making not 
only Harry, but also us the readers change in some way. 
For me HBP seems to seal Snape's fate as a tragic person, and I 
agree to what has been said before ? his chances of surviving Book 
7, are really very low. Lower than Voldermort's in a way, IMO.


>Sydney 

> The larger objection is a wavering, agonizing, side-switching
> Snape is just such a massive focus-puller. It would make Snape,
> not Harry,making all the critical choices and going through the
> most interesting emotions at the end of the book. Story-wise I'm
> much happier having Snape running down a pretty clear,
> straightforward track, and Harry doing all the mind-changing. For
> this reason I would prefer Evil!Snape to conflicted!Snape, because
> much as I'd rather read a book about Snape, this ain't it.

Orna:
One more thing, Harry is of course the hero of the books, but it's 
Snape who gets, as it seems most of the emotion and thoughts in the 
debates, as far as making people making UVs about it.  ? I agree 
it's because of the tension between both of them, but being that so, 
it may imply, that both of them have to change, grow. (Harry more, 
being the Hero, getting all the applause, but Snape also. After all, 
we see in HBP even Draco changes a little, if only the angle of his 
wand
). But that's just my personal preference, having pity on 
Snape, and not liking the idea of all the characters sustaining 7 
books, with just Harry growing and changing. <g>

Orna









From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 15:18:38 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:18:38 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAASvhDGeLZkmapofd2RS9fwEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dl514e+10ku0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142937


> Bruce:
> Lady C. and Mrs. B. both violate the SPIRIT of good manners, but 
neither one (at
> least in this instance) violates the LETTER of the code.  This was 
the first
> example that came to mind; I'm sure if I had my books here I could 
find some
> better ones.  The point is that it is possible to not break--
although perhaps
> severely bend--the code in such a way that one can deliver a 
fairly stinging
> rebuke to the other party in such a way that she/he/they can't 
respond in kind
> without putting themselves even more in the wrong, which is 
exactly what DD
> does.  
> 

a_svirn:

I hope you will soon be reunited with your books, since your 
recollections of the events of Pride and Prejudice are somewhat at 
fault. Lady Cathrine behaves with the utmost rudeness at the 
Bennetts', while Mrs. Bennett's revolting toad-eating is exactly the 
kind of behaviour that has earned her unanimous contempt that even 
her daughters share. The only person who conforms the convention is 
Elisabeth, and she stands her ground very firmly and returns a heavy 
set-down to every "stinging rebuke" her ladyship comes up with. And 
it's Elisabeth who brings the visit to close, when she has enough of 
Lady Catharine's rudeness:

 ``You can now have nothing farther to say,'' she resentfully 
answered. ``You have insulted me in every possible method. I must 
beg to return to the house.''

And she rose as she spoke. Lady Catharine rose also, and they turned 
back. Her ladyship was highly incensed".


Also I must say that you are overlooking a few pertinent points in 
making this comparison. Lady Catharine comes at a quite reasonable 
hour, not calculated to cause the family any inconvenience. Unlike 
Dumbledore, who is not only totally unwelcome visitor, but also a 
complete stranger to the Dursleys', Lady Catharine is a welcome 
guest at the Bennett's household.  Unlike Dumbledore, she has a 
claim on their hospitality: after all, Elisabeth while staying in 
Kent enjoyed hers ? such as it was. She is also a patroness of Mr. 
Bennett's cousin and heir. There is no reason in the world why she 
shouldn't come to visit the Bennetts while staying in the 
neighborhood. In fact, if it had been just a social call it would 
have been a very pretty gesture. The only similarity in her behavior 
with that of Dumbledore's is that she behaves rudely, ignores her 
hosts in favor of the only person she really wants to see and that 
she presumes to preach proprieties wile behaving improper herself. 

a_svirn







From lolita_ns at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 16:38:57 2005
From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:38:57 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl55r1+o9bt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142938


Well... First, I would have to say that I am well on my way of 
becoming a literary expert, since I've graduated from English 
language and Literature and I'm now a postgraduate in Anglo-American 
literature. My MA is going to be in Nabokov, but I can't wait for my 
PhD, since I'm going to do it in HP. That is one answer to your 
question - you could say that I'm reading HP as part of my job. :)

But now seriously. I started reading HP after I got PS from a friend 
as a birthday gift. Frankly, I didn't think that the first book was 
particularly good - sure, it was interesting, but from a purely 
literary PoV, it was highly conventional, even old-fashioned in terms 
of today's trends in children's literature. It seemed to me that PS 
wasn't good enough a realisation of a highly ambitious idea of 
Potterverse. I concluded that the reason for this was that PS was a 
first in a series of books. And I was right. Rowling's style has 
generally approved with the consecutive books (well, until HBP, but 
more of that later). Also, one must not forget that HP is a fist 
published work of a new and inexperienced writer, and, as such, is 
rather a strong debut.

I have recently written a seminar paper on the phenomenon that is HP 
as part of the course in children's and teenage fiction I had. And it 
was really difficult to try and put together a list of why the Potter 
series is so popular. My conclusions were the following:

1. Reading HP is trendy. Part of the phenomenon has to do with Go-
with-the-flow idea. Nearly everyone wants to be 'knowledgeable' in 
terms of popular culture. And HP *is* part of pop culture.

2. HP was a refreshment in an era when children's fiction block 
lacked some serious new kids on it. It was new, and it was chic, and 
in terms of narative technique, it offered an escape to an earlier 
era of children's fiction. Children's fiction is characterised by a 
less than equal relationship between adult author and child reader. 
Postmodernism brought about more 'writerly' texts (i.e. those where 
the reader can participate in the creation of the meaning, with 
numerous intertextual references and the discussion - with the 
reader - of the process of writing itself, thus deconstructing it). 
Rowling's narration, however, relies more on the previous tradition, 
with confident authorial voice which doesn't allow for much by-play 
with the reader. She presents the reader with the story, and while he 
is active in a way (like the reader of mystery, for example, because 
he has to catch all the clues and be wary of red herrings), he is 
never a part of the very process of writing. Thus, reader is less 
responsible in the discerning of meaning, he is safely navigated 
through the story by the author/narrator. This return to a 
traditional mode of narration has earned Rowling the support of both 
child and adult readers who, for a change, just wanted to be told a 
story.

3. HP is a work in progress. It positively invites the readers to 
read on and on, in order to figure out just what is actually going 
on. Moreover, it is similar to mystery in this way, because the 
reader just can't put the book down until he has seen the puzzle 
unwrap.

4. In terms of themes, HP is attractive to both children and adults 
because it deals with archetypal themes and - one might say - staple 
genre conventions in children's literature; however, it somehow 
transcends them. For instance, you've got horrible teachers and 
bullies, friendship and animals, etc. in almost all school stories. 
However, while heroes of other such stories get into scrapes with 
teachers and bullies but are never in any real danger, Harry faces 
very real, very true horrors. (e.g. Dahl's Captain Lancaster in 
Danny, the champion of the world is a horrible, strict teacher, but 
is not even close to the levels of Umbridge, Fake!Moody and our all 
times favourite, Snape). Animals in Potterverse are also given new 
facets (compare The Famous Five's Timmy and Animagi, and it'll be 
clear). And so forth.

5. Rowling depicts horror faithfully - the real horror of killing, 
torturing and controlling, symbolised by the Unforgivables. Also, she 
allows her characters to grow up, as well as older. This earns her 
points with adult readers, mostly.

6. Genre variation is probably the only Postmodern treat in HP. Genre 
distinctions in children's literature are more blurred than in 
literature aimed at adults and children's fiction is thus generally 
enjoyed by lots of different readers. The possibilities of reading HP 
as a classic Bildungsroman, quest story, horror story, even romance - 
insure that every reader can find something for himself, adults and 
children alike.

7. In terms of humour, Rowling is rather strong. Her humour is 
varied, in accordance with different characters. So, you've got low 
comedy, or farce, when Fred & George are concerned (think U-No-POO), 
then you've got high comedy (think Snape's dry, sarcastic, typically 
British humour), and there is also DD's light, sligtly mad humour 
(think the cheese cauldron :) ).

8. As for literary tradition, Rowling relies on previous literature - 
most notably, Macbeth (the self-fulfilling prophecy), folklore (House-
elves, Horcruxes...), fairy-tales (the original gory ones, not 
Disney's celuloid dreamlike worlds); thus ensuring more support from 
her readers. I've said it before - there are no original themes in 
literature any more - everything's already been said hundreds of 
thousands of times before. But as an author, you are to take a go at 
a theme and try to give your version of it. Which Rowling effectively 
does.

9. Last but by no means least - HP fandom, which has become quite a 
machinery; and what cannot be overlooked - clever marketing and all 
the hype surrounding the books.

I may have skipped something, but this is turning out to be quite a 
long post, regardless. :)

As for the characters, the amazing thing is that a lot of readers 
seem to think of them as of real people (Admit it! Did you cry when 
DD died? :) ) I was particularly pleased with how she developed the 
character of Voldemort - until HBP, that is. For in the majority of 
children's books, villains are either comical (Count Olaf, e.g.) or 
purely Evil personified (Sauron - yes, LOTR qualifies as teenage 
fiction). Voldemort seemed to be a flesh-and-blood character (at 
least metaphorically). Rowling repeatedly said that he was not born 
evil, and underlined the importance of choices. However, in HBP we 
were given the picture of the Gaunts and of 'funny baby Tom' which, 
to me at least, went to prove that Voldemort's evil was inherited, 
that he had no choice whatsoever but to become a monster (surely, as 
we were shown, he was a monster in development long before he had 
even heard of the wizarding world). But that is not the topic for 
this post... What I'm trying to say is that somewhere along the road. 
Rowling seems to have forgotten her original ideas. It seems to me 
that she started off with a more ambitious plan, and now it appears 
as if she can't proceed at the pace she walked at in, e.g. PoA. 

So... To me, at least, the Pro!HP list is much longer that the Con!HP 
list (I haven't even comprised a list to post here of the downsides 
of HP). True, Rowling is not a 'literary' writer, HP is closer to 
what you would call 'storytelling' than to literature, and the hype 
surrounding the books probably puts a lot of people off HP. But hey - 
HP, no matter how 'lowbrow' it may be (and since we lack the whole 
picture - that is, the whole story - we can't really give a 
definitive answer to the HP phenomenon. With the ultimate conclusion 
of the series, a lot of in-depth literary analyses are bound to 
spring up, for only then can we be in a position to really be 
truthful to the series), HP returns the reader to one of the basic 
pleasures of literature - the enjoyment in being told a good story. 
Beyond any doubt, regardless of the fact that there are some serious 
consistency issues and old-fashioned literary modes in HP, the books 
will be widely read 20 years from now as they are today. Which is, 
when all is said and done, really all that matters.

Lolita






From BrwNeil at aol.com  Sat Nov 12 18:15:52 2005
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:15:52 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:  Tower scene reactions about Snape; different sympath...
Message-ID: <110.56e035ce.30a78b58@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142939

 
 
In a message dated 11/12/2005 10:07:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
ornawn at 013.net writes:

>For  me HBP seems to seal Snape's fate as a tragic person, and I 
>agree to  what has been said before ? his chances of surviving Book 
>7, are  really very low. Lower than Voldermort's in a way,  IMO.

I share your opinion of the unlikeliness of Snape surviving Book 7.   Good or 
bad he is a marked man.  Obvious, if he is a true Death Eater and  Voldemort 
supporter, we'll all be cheering for his early demise.  If,  however, he was 
acting on Dumbledore's orders and simply killed a dying man to  prove false 
loyalty, there are still extreme problems. 
 
I doubt that the wizard world considers assisted suiside any more legal  than 
the Muggle world.  An unforgivable curse is unforgivable no  matter what the 
reason.  Even if Dumbledore's portrait tells the world that  Snape is 
innocent, Rowling will have to kill him off or end up being seen  as a supporter of 
assisted suicide.
 
I tend to believe that Snape acted on Dumbledore's orders.  I think  that is 
what they argued about and what had Snape upset and angry.  To  believe 
otherwise is to have our last memory of Dumbledore be as that of a  stupid, too 
trusting old man who was foolish to believe in giving second  chances.   I doubt 
this is the message JKR intends to leave us  with.
 
Snape will probably die saving Harry.  That would eliminate the  problem of 
how the punishment for the AK curse is to be dealt with.  I  don't believe JKR 
has given us the true reason why Snape was distraught at  setting up the 
murders of the Potters.  I'm a member of the camp that feels  Snape hated James 
because he ended up with Lily.  It was because of Snape  intervention with 
Voldmort that Lily was offered a chance to live.
 
Hopefully JKR won't make us wait longer than two years for the  answers.
 
 
Neil




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jelly92784 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 18:23:15 2005
From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:23:15 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dl0epj+b89u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5buj+iku6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142940

Lucianam: Assuming Voldemort was after Godric's sword or the Sorting
Hat, for example (any more ideas to possible horcruxes in Hogwarts?),
how exactly would his teaching DADA help him get them? 

Janelle: One thought that my sister had when we were discussing this
last summer was Tom Riddle's award for special services to the school.
 Granted, it could merely have been serving the purpose of giving Ron
a way to recognize the name, allowing Harry and Ron to figure
everything out at the end of Chamber of Secrets, but I think it's
possible that it could be important in other ways, namely as a horcrux.







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 18:32:12 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:32:12 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore calls a spade a spade
In-Reply-To: <dl4518+e23d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5cfc+n0dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142941

> >>Namarie:
> As did many others, I quite enjoyed reading Prof Dumbledore telling 
> the Dursleys precisely what he thought of their actions.  They have 
> failed Dudley, creating a flawed human being, and the Headmaster is 
> the only person who ever said so in such  unambiguous words.  Notes 
> from the elementary school and from Smeltings were read through the 
> lens of denial.  That the Headmaster cast his actions in the mold of 
> politeness, while being insufferably impolite, is a quintessentially 
> Victorian way of doing things. (My grandmother was born in 1894.  If 
> she didn't like you, she was cooly {coldly} formal with you.)
> So, to all of you who castigate the Head for bullying, I say, "Tosh.'

Betsy Hp:
Just out of curiosity, would your grandmother have shown up, uninvited 
and unannounced at the house of someone she's never met?  Would she 
pull a weapon and bodily force them into a seat?  Would she beat them 
over the head because they refused to drink what she placed before 
them?

Again, I thought Dumbledore's speech was fine.  But his bullying 
actions before his speech (and I'm genuinely flummoxed by folks 
insisting that hitting someone on the head is somehow polite and not 
bullying at all) weaken any argument he puts forth, IMO.

I can understand that some people see Dumbledore's actions as funny 
and only too owed to the Dursleys, that the Dursleys are being served 
their just desserts as it were.  But to try and couch his actions as 
only proper and the hight of civility, to try and deny that Dumbledore 
was using his position as a wizard to overwhelm and overpower the 
Dursleys is to ignore the text, IMO.

Betsy Hp







From jelly92784 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 18:55:12 2005
From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:55:12 -0000
Subject: Weasley's finances (was: Re: Harry Helping Ron Financially?)
In-Reply-To: <dl2c95+s52o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5dqg+u958@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142942

Foodiedb:
I was wondering why Harry doesn't offer to financially help Ron and
family?

Janelle: I've often wondered about the Weasley's financial situation-
but not in the sense of why Harry doesn't help them.  The seemingly
easy answer for this is that their pride would not allow them to
accept money from Harry.  Harry does, as has been pointed out, help in
small ways when he can: the dress robes for Ron, the prize money to
Fred and George, and in Chamber when he wins all of Lockhart's books
he gives them to Ginny and buys his own.  This brings me to what it is
that I often wonder about and that is school books.  Chamber is where
this is most pertinent, as here we have a scene in the book store. 
Fred makes a comment about five sets of Lockhart books not coming
cheap.  but why do they have to buy five sets?  can't they share?  And
why do they need to buy Ginny second-hand first-year books?  Can't she
just use Ron's?  Or those of one of the brothers who has left school
already?  I understand that some books, such as those for potions,
students need to keep and consult throughout their schooling, but what
about the standard book of spells?  They get a new one each year,
couldn't Ginny use a copy belonging to one of her six brothers?  Thoughts?








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 19:18:41 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:18:41 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dl2l8o+dadp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5f6h+tmo3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142943

> >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > But the bottom line for me is that just as people don't like    
> > being locked up, whether they deserve to be or not, people don't 
> > like being ordered about, even if the orders would be good for   
> > them. They will rebel, eventually,  no matter how powerless and 
> > intimidated they seem to be. That's what happened with Kreacher, 
> > and it would have happened with Vernon and Petunia. Dumbledore's 
> > intervention might have handed Harry straight to the death      
> > eaters. 

> >>Magpie:
> But if Dumbledore actually trying to make them stop actively      
> abusing Harry *might* get him turned over the Death Eaters somehow 
> (I assume the Dursleys wouldn't be doing it, as they wouldn't know 
> how) or make the Dursleys worse, why do some of the books end with 
> the happy idea that the Dursleys are going to be threatened into   
> behaving now?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think the story of the Longbottoms supply an example of the threat 
Harry faced.  If the Dursleys had said thanks but no thanks and 
given Harry to an orphanage (or a foster home -- do orphanages even 
exist in England anymore?), I think we're supposed to imagine that 
undiscovered Death Eaters would have hunted him down and either 
killed him or kidnapped him.

I think it's noteworthy that Harry has no wizard contact at all 
until he's eleven.  Dumbledore plants a squib (Mrs. Figg), unknown 
even to the MoM, to keep an eye on Harry.  I get the impression that 
Harry's location was unknown to any wizards not in the Order.  And 
probably only a few Order members at that.

Once Harry is introduced to the WW the protection of the Dursleys is 
lessened.  It's still a handy sanctuary to have, especially since 
Dumbledore is trying to downplay his personal interest in Harry 
(something that ends at the conclusion of OotP, IIRC).  That Harry 
uses his newly discovered power to intimidate Dudley into leaving 
him alone, and his new connections to let the Dursleys know that 
there are folks watching out for him, is Harry's business.  It's an 
internal struggle rather than an outside one.  If that makes any 
sense.

The members of the Order threatening the Dursleys at the end of OotP 
signals, I think, an end to that detachment.  Dumbledore has decided 
that he will no longer try and hide his connection to Harry.  It's 
only about two weeks later that he turns up on the Dursleys doorstep 
to deliver his smack-down, IIRC.

[Actually, it's an interesting conflict that occurs here, IMO.  Why 
do the Dursleys accept Harry back into their home after his first 
year at Hogwarts?  Not only accept him into their home but make the 
trip to Kings Cross to pick him up?  It goes hand in hand with the 
question of why they fight so hard to prevent Harry from becoming a 
wizard in the first place.  I mean, why not just give Harry up and 
good riddance to bad rubbish?  Why go through all the trouble of 
trying to hide him from the WW?]

> >>Magpie:
> Basically, to me it seems like the problem is this: Rowling        
> started out with a fairy-tale/Roald Dahl idea so Harry has        
> terrible parents.  Unfortunately, due to her plot, the magical    
> mentor character was also the person engineering his early abuse.  
> It's the mixing of two genres, I think, that's causing a problem.  
> <snip>
> Rowling kind of wanted both here-- Cinderella and Percival or     
> whoever, so she leaves you with the obvious question of why the    
> Wise Mentor felt it necessary that our hero was absued as a child.
> <snip> 

Betsy Hp:
I agree that the mixing of genres is the challange JKR undertook.  I 
think she was aware of the problems she was facing, however.  
Because the Dursleys have never reached the level of Dahl or Grimm 
when it comes to bad parenting, I think.  That always struck me.  
They were terrible, obviously.  But a Dahl child would have begged 
to live under such easy discipline, I think.  Cinderella would have 
seen Harry's chores as a day off.

Aunt Marge really brings that out, I think.  She revels in making 
Harry play the part of serving boy, enjoys picking at him to see him 
squirm, and really seems excited at the idea of Harry being caned.  
Compared to her, the Dursleys' attitude of "out of our sight" seems 
almost caring.  It's also brought home by Abused!Harry fic, I 
think.  When writers set out to write Harry's horrible homelife they 
have to tweak the Dursleys into behaving *much* worse than they do 
in canon.

Then JKR turns around and makes the wise mentor very human.  He 
makes mistakes and often seems to be reacting to trouble rather than 
having a master plan ticking away in the background.  Often times 
the books seem to end with Dumbledore victorious only by the skin of 
his teeth rather than chuckling over a plan coming beautifully 
together.

I'm not trying to say JKR did a seamless job of combining the two 
genres.  There are problems, and with only one book left I'm not 
sure she'll be able to smooth those problems out.  If Petunia gets a 
chance to share her side of the story, that may go a long way.  And 
I must say, JKR's handling of Draco's arc has given me a bit of hope.

Betsy Hp






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 21:52:16 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:52:16 -0000
Subject: The Nature of Popularity - The HP Phenomenon
Message-ID: <dl5o6g+a2vl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142944

Recently we have had discussions both on why we individually like the
books and on the nature and quality of JKR's writing.

Some have speculated that the popularity of Harry Potter is merely a
fad and that many readers are just jumping on the band wagon to stay
in sync with their friends. Others speculate that while JKR is only a
fair writer, she does none the less tell a good story. 

I am going to try to add a unique perspective to the HP phenomenon,
and see where that leads us.

Recently, like 5 minutes ago, I checked the various categories at
FanFiction.net and made a list of the most popular subjects in each
category. The number to the right indicates how many fan fictions have
been published on that subject. 

Here they are -

Movies -

Star Wars (14021)
Pirates of the Caribbean (7151)
X-Men: The Movie (5030)
Matrix (2902
Labyrinth (2774)

Anime-

Yu-Gi-Oh (36966)
Gundam Wing/AC (35593)
Dragon Ball Z (28833)
Digimon (26186)
Sailor Moon (20593)

TV Shows-

Buffy: The Vampire Slayer (27849)
Stargate: SG-1 (11030)
CSI (9575)
X-Files (5600)
StarTrek: Voyager (3879)


Now the important one...

BOOKS-

Harry Potter (215,865)
Lord of the Rings (38,338)
Tamora Pierce (5,834)
Phantom of the Opera (5,168)
Animorphs (3,637)

Note that Harry Potter is nearly **SIX TIMES** more popular that the
second best in all categories combined. [Which just happens to be
'Lord of the Rings'; a book]

Keep in mind that this is published Fan Fiction. The people involved
had to take action, they actually had to do work, they actually had to
actually write a story. That tells me that the Harry Potter phenomenon
is far more than a fad. The level of creativity and extension of the
imagination is to far above and beyond anything else for it to simply
be a fad.

The imagination of these people has been so stimulated that they
couldn't help themselves, they had to write these stories. I, myself,
who had never written anything outside of a school assignments, was
motivated to write over 1200 pages, nearly 300,000 words of Harry
Potter fan fiction. [Most of which is unsuitable for anyone under the
age of 21 and requires a very open and liberal mind.] That is
extraordinary. That's not just being a fan, or following a popular trend. 

I also like Artimus Fowl, Eragon, Ender, Bean, and the Bartimaeus
Trilogy but I haven't been motivated to write 300, much less 300,000
words about them. No degree of popular trend or mass marketing can
generate an ACTIVE response like Harry Potter has. No book could be so
far out of proportion in stimulating creativity in readers based on
nothing more that popular appeal. 

So, what is it that makes these books so unique? What is it about them
that makes them so very special? Why do people who rant and rave about
the books flaws here in this very group still eagerly await the next
installment?

Here is what I think, and to some this is old news because I've said
it so many times before.

1.) Open-Loop Writing - I'm not so sure I like this description, but
it was a nice phrase brought forth by another member of the group
[Sydney] to describe this particular aspect. Since I couldn't have
said it better, I will quote Sydney.

Post# 142762
"To me the strongest thing about JKR's writing as STYLE, ..., is that
she's an open-loop writer-- she wants the reader to meet her half-way,
so she'll sort of go half-way out and then wait for you to cross over
the rest yourself. ... This goes for descriptions of things-- you have
to do most of the picture-painting yourself-- but it also goes for
plot points, such as the vast off-stage drama of the Crouch family;
and for details implied as opposed to stated, such as Neville's toad
being an unfashionable pet given by an out-of-touch older relative."

JKR has an immensely compact writing style. The description of her
characters are usually brief and vague, but so skillfully crafted that
it stimulates our imagination to quickly and fully fill in the blanks.
Because the characters come from our own imagination rather than long
drawn out 'word-picture painting' by the author, these characters live
for us; we create them. As I have said before, if you look at the
original description of Ron in PS/SS, it's almost nothing, yet we are
all able to fully form an image of Ron in our mind. Further, to the
best of my knowledge, we aren't told that Draco is a blond until the
Quidditch World Cup in GoF. Yet despite that missing detail, we each
again had a clear image of Draco in our minds.

Also, this compact style keeps the plot moving. We never get bogged
down in long drawn out narratives. In HBP, despite two interesting
information filled chapters, we first see Harry on page 38. In OotP,
the Dementors appear on page 16 and Harry is at Grimmauld Place by
page 59. Think about how much story is contained in those few pages.

2.) Universally Human Characters - in JKR's stories, even the
non-human characters are 'human' or perhaps I should say humanized.
There is nothing so dull, uninspiring, and boring as flawless, always
right, never wrong, near sainthood characters. When 'perfection'
overcomes every obstacle and every situation, the characters become
walking morals both in the story sense and the spiritual sense. I
don't need someone to beat me over the head with 'the moral of the
story'. Just tell me the story, and if I find the moral of it then I
am a better person for it because that moral and those morals came
from inside me. They were not forced on my by some 'holy roller' of an
author.

This goes back to point 1.), and to a basic moral premise that
overrides anything anyone could ever tell me, and that is - the lesson
I learn the best in life are the lessons I teach myself. /Revelation/
is always a more inspiring teacher that /explanation/. So, JKR doesn't
bother to explain the moral of her stories. She doesn't make clear any
message that may be contained there in. The characters live their
lives and they live them as flawed human beings. They struggle with
both the big and the small question of life, and frequently they get
it wrong, but usually they get it right. Harry breaks the rules to
accomplish great things, but JKR doesn't sermonize about this, we
simply see it and draw our own conclusions.

I think this is one of the biggest draws of these books, JKR's
characters struggle with the great and small aspect of daily life.
They struggle to understand what is truly 'right' and what it truly
'wrong'. If Harry did what was right by the rules in PS/SS, he would
have forgotten about the Stone and Voldemort and gone to bed. He would
have let the grownups handle it. But to Harry in his own moral
struggle, it was clear that the grownups were NOT handling it. So, he
had to make a choice, follow the rules, or do what is right and what
was necessary. 

JKR doesn't put it to us like that though, Harry simply makes his
decision to go after the Stone and we are allowed to draw our own
conclusion. We have had some very deep and intense discussions here in
this group about Harry's rule breaking and his apparent lack of
punishment for such rule breaking. The diversity, depth, and range of
those opinions should make it clear that the author didn't not resolve
this issue in the story. We must resolve it in our own minds and with
our own conscience.

I don't think kids or adults want to be told what is right and wrong,
they want that knowledge to spring forth from within themselves. They
want to reach their own conclusion. JKR lets us do just that. Rather
that putting moral messages in her stories, she tells us of Harry
struggles with moral questions, and lets us each decide for ourselves
whether he did the right thing or not. Once again, Revelation is far
more powerful that explanation.

I think we identify with Harry because we are all fighting the same
fight in our daily lives. No I don't mean dragons and dark wizard, I'm
talking about internal struggles. We all struggle with right and
wrong, not just in choosing, but in knowing which is which. 

3.) The Common and Familiar - JKR set her story in the modern day
world, which is very different from 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Eragon'.
She give us a world that is completely common and familiar, she draws
into her stories not only the everyday life in Britain, but she draws
on myths and legends that are universally familiar to all people of
western culture and to many of other diverse cultures. Centaur, for
example, are pretty much a European construct, but Dragons, on the
other hand, are somewhat universal to cultures east and west. 

The story taking place in a familiar world, I think, is very
captivating to readers. To imagine that perhaps magic is all around
us, and we are just to busy and blinded by our routine lives to see it. 

There is also that familiarity of life's struggles which goes back to
item 2.). We all know what it is like to be a kid, we all know what it
is like to become a teenager and struggle with identity,
relationships, the opposite sex, and yes, even sex itself. We all know
how horribly bad teachers can be and we have all burned with
indignation at life's injustices. We've all felt powerful and powerless. 

As an example of the familiarity with our own daily lives, I think JKR
has done a stunning job of depicting the inner workings of the minds
of boys; Harry's sense of mischiefness, his sense of awkwardness, his
total confusion about the minds and motivations of girls, his
frustration at the lack of control of his own feelings when girls are
around. 

The same is true of girls. Many people found Hermione's explanation on
the nature of girls to Harry and Ron as being a little too insightful
for some one Hermione's age, but I can't agree. First, it's always
easier to understand and solve OTHER PEOPLE'S problems than it is your
own. I find it very realistic that Hermoine would have that insight
into Harry and Ron's relationships, but notice the Hermione doesn't
have any relationship of a romantic nature of her own. That's because
the emotions involved in dealing with your own problems and
relationship are infinitely more complex that those of other people.

4.) The Classic Heroes Journey - I mean this in an abstract sense, in
the Joseph Campbell's 'The Hero of a Thousand Faces', 'The Hero's
Journey', 'Power of Myth' sense. JKR has tapped into a universal
story. In a sense the greatest stories every told are all really
telling the same story; the universal story that lies at the spiritual
core of all mankind. In tapping into this universal mythos, JKR has
unleashed a story that will endure beyond anything that is mere fad or
marketing hype. Let's remember that this story originally grew without
marketing hype. It moved by word-of-mouth from kid to kid, from reader
to reader, spanning the globe at an unprecedented rate. It has more
gross sales upon the release of one book than many good authors ever
expect to see in the lifetime of a single books. 

As I said, this is certainly not marketing hype or fad, JKR has tapped
into some universal essence, some essential deep-seated aspect of life
that transcends time and culture and touches us all.

Is JKR a technically good writer, well maybe not, but she is a
stunningly good storyteller, and good story telling is a tradition
many centuries, even millennium, old, it transcends the written word.
JKR's worst book is still more interesting than many other top best
sellers. 

Conclusion-
As I have said, JKR has tapped into some universal aspect of mankind;
she has touched us at our ancient core. Further, you will notice that
one word 'imagination' has appeared frequently in my 'essay'. JKR has
stimulated our imagination in ways that many popular authors simply
could not. She made us reach deeper inside ourselves, and search for
the hero inside. She has inspired us, and opened up a world filled
with characters that to many readers are as full alive as the people
around us, and in some cases, even more live because they live in our
imaginations and they have the power to take us where we want to go,
teach us what we want to know, and give us a forum and framework to
say what we want to say. 

The universal power and ancient core make JKR's work far more than
popular fad or good marketing

Steve/bboyminn







From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Sat Nov 12 22:00:31 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:00:31 -0000
Subject: Lily, Snape, Potions
In-Reply-To: <dl447s+eqgb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5olv+nnc7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142945


> Krista wrote:

> Anyway, to get back to the question of who-guided-whom: 
> Neither. We have info to suggest Snape's a genius in 
> Potions, and that Lily, at the least, was naturally gifted
> and quite skilled. We have no reason to believe 
> either needed (particular) assistance. If anything,
> I tend to believe they were lab partners (because can't you see
> Lily honing in on poor lonely teen!Snape when it came time
> to choose partners) who assisted one another in a shared
> sense of academic curiosity and drive.


Lucianam:

Actually, we have no evidence, apart from Slughorn's comments, that 
Lily was a good Potions student. From what I remember, the only 
specific thing we ever heard about Lily as a witch in previous books 
was a reference by Ollivander about her wand being good for 
Charmwork.

Slughorn goes on and on about how he liked Lily, but we never hear 
anybody else confirm that they had any special kind of relationship, 
or even that Lily had outstanding ability in Potions. When they're 
at the Christmas party, Slughorn does not mention Lily in front of 
Snape, for example. All he says is Harry must be a 'natural'.

I'm not saying Slughorn is lying for sure; I'm saying he could be 
lying, for all we know. I'd like to have somebody else's 
confirmation on Slughorn's claims, anyway.

Lucianam







From iris_ft at yahoo.fr  Sat Nov 12 23:22:05 2005
From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:22:05 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dktfrh+35ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5tet+kjkq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142946

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" <ibchawz at y...> wrote:
>
> I joined this list shortly after HPB was released.  

Hi Ibchawz, you are welcome!


Ibchawz
"My question is: If you feel these
books are so poorly written from a character, plot, and storyline
development perspective, why do you read them?"


Now me:
I remember we had quite a similar discussion on this list when OotP 
was released. I won't repeat here what I said at the time (message 
72884).
I'll simply add that IMVHO, a book so many people read all around 
the world isn't poorly written at all. It is able to captivate 
academics as well as children; it goes beyond all our cultural 
differences. Oh no, it's not poorly written at all. It is simply 
written, and that's not the same thing. Writing simply, especially 
that kind of book, is very difficult indeed. There were many 
opportunities to write complicated sentences, but JK Rowling 
preferred to choose carefully her vocabulary and to write something 
everyone could understand easily. Her books are like Harry: they 
look humble, but they have a power nobody can explain. And this 
power is able to touch our hearts, wherever we come from. Simple, 
but universal. Simple, but incredibly rich because of what lies 
behind the limpid sentences. That's why I enjoy the Harry Potter 
books so much.
And you know, I'm glad to be there with you and the other people, 
waiting for the next opus. I think we are lucky: it's great to 
witness what is happening now, it's great to be contemporary with 
Harry Potter.

Ibchawz again:
"I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.
Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious,
amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc. If
Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do you
read the books?"

Re-me:
Good question! It's probably because with all his defects, Harry is 
terribly human. Actually, he's holding a mirror and he shows us our 
own reflections. We feel upset because he's not perfect, which isn't 
very comforting. On the other hand, we are secretly happy to see 
he's like us. His defects are there to remind us how fragile and 
fallible we are. His qualities give us hope. We face him exactly the 
way we face the human kind.

Of course this is only my point of view,

Amicalement,

Iris








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov 12 23:54:10 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:54:10 -0000
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
In-Reply-To: <dl5tet+kjkq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5vb2+hep1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142948

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "iris_ft" <iris_ft at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" <ibchawz at y...> 
wrote:

Ibchawz:
> "I have seen criticism of Harry Potter's character and moral fiber.
> Comments I have seen include him being arrogant, lazy, rebellious,
> amoral, immoral, plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent, etc. If
> Harry, as the main character, is really this bad a person, why do 
you
> read the books?"
 
Iris:
> Good question! It's probably because with all his defects, Harry is 
> terribly human. Actually, he's holding a mirror and he shows us our 
> own reflections. We feel upset because he's not perfect, which 
isn't 
> very comforting. On the other hand, we are secretly happy to see 
> he's like us. His defects are there to remind us how fragile and 
> fallible we are. His qualities give us hope. We face him exactly 
the 
> way we face the human kind.

Geoff:
I'm not upset because I don't want a hero who is perfect because I 
can't identify with him.

I can identify with Harry because I can see so many things that he 
experiences which I remember from my own teenage days and, for 
example, I can see him making the same mistakes and wrong assumptions 
which I did.

Ok, so he's "arrogant, lazy, rebellious, amoral, immoral, 
plagiaristic, disrespectful, incompetent". How many of us, hand on 
heart, can claim that we haven't been down those roads ourselves at 
times?

Nope, I enjoy having a "real" Harry for company....







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 23:57:30 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:57:30 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dl5f6h+tmo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5vha+84ro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142949

> Betsy Hp:
> Once Harry is introduced to the WW the protection of the Dursleys
is
> lessened. It's still a handy sanctuary to have, especially since
> Dumbledore is trying to downplay his personal interest in Harry
> (something that ends at the conclusion of OotP, IIRC).

a_svirn:
Somehow I didn't notice that he ever tried anything of the sort.


> Betsy Hp:
That Harry
> uses his newly discovered power to intimidate Dudley into leaving
> him alone, and his new connections to let the Dursleys know that
> there are folks watching out for him, is Harry's business. It's
an
> internal struggle rather than an outside one. If that makes any
> sense.

a_svirn:
I don't see what difference it makes for the Dursleys. From where
they are standing they are still being intimidated by wizards.
Whether the wizards in question are aurors or convicts is of little
importance to them. The point is that they are all magical and the
Dursleys don't want to have anything to do with magic.

> Betsy Hp:
> [Actually, it's an interesting conflict that occurs here, IMO.
Why
> do the Dursleys accept Harry back into their home after his first
> year at Hogwarts? Not only accept him into their home but make
the
> trip to Kings Cross to pick him up? It goes hand in hand with the
> question of why they fight so hard to prevent Harry from becoming
a
> wizard in the first place. I mean, why not just give Harry up and
> good riddance to bad rubbish? Why go through all the trouble of
> trying to hide him from the WW?]

a_svirn:
I think we know the answer to this question. Getting rid of Harry
simply isn't an option. When Vernon had been pushed beyond endurance
and tried it in OOP, Dumbledore threatened Petunia, didn't he? And
in HBP the main object of the Dumbledore's "well-mannered" visit was
to ensure that Harry would be able to return one last time.








From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 12 23:57:36 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:57:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl514e+10ku0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl5vhi+vvf4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142951

a_svirn:
> Also I must say that you are overlooking a few pertinent points in 
> making this comparison. Lady Catharine comes at a quite reasonable 
> hour, not calculated to cause the family any inconvenience. 


Valky:
There is no proof that Dumbledore 'calculated' his arrival to be
inconvenient to the Dursely's due to the hour. And neither is it
inferred that he was there at that time to deliberately cause
inconvenience. In fact we are even assuming that it *was* so
inconvenient to the Dursleys that he arrived at 11:00pm, even they
don't mention it.
 

a_svirn
> Unlike 
> Dumbledore, who is not only totally unwelcome visitor, but also a 
> complete stranger to the Dursleys', Lady Catharine is a welcome 
> guest at the Bennett's household.  Unlike Dumbledore, she has a 
> claim on their hospitality: after all, Elisabeth while staying in 
> Kent enjoyed hers ? such as it was. She is also a patroness of Mr. 
> Bennett's cousin and heir. There is no reason in the world why she 
> shouldn't come to visit the Bennetts while staying in the 
> neighborhood.


Valky:
I think your reasoning is false here, Dumbledore does have claim on
their hospitality. And he is not a stranger.

You say there is no reason at all Lady C shouldn't become because she
is a Patroness of the Head of House's relative? What's Dumbledore
then, a wet teabag? Dumbledore is a patron of Harry's school of
Harry's world he is a Patron of the head of Household's relative - by
your own reasoning you are agreeing with me - Dumbledore is obliged to
call in. Are you now going to say that harry's relationship to the
Dursley's doesn't exist?

a_svirn:
> In fact, if it had been just a social call it would 
> have been a very pretty gesture.

Valky:
Then surely you can see how the same goes for Dumbledore? No?

> a_svirn:
> The only similarity in her behavior 
> with that of Dumbledore's is that she behaves rudely, 

Valky:
With the same veneer of etiquette as Dumbledore - goes to this side of
the argument.



a_svirn:
> ...ignores her 
> hosts in favor of the only person she really wants to see 

Dumbledore didn't ignore the Dursleys. All Dumbledore *ignores*, if
you care to reunite yourself with the text, is the Dursley's
embarassing themselves with their wanton greed and stupidity.

 
a_svirn:
> and that 
> she presumes to preach proprieties wile behaving improper herself. 
> 

Valky:
Well that would be out of character for Dumbledore. I can't honestly
understand where you'd get the notion that the writer strove for such
a wholly contradictory character flaw. The whole series will need a
rewrite now with Hypocrite!Dumbledore thoroughly backed up in all
manner or else are we to assume that it wasn't Dumbledore at all?
Don't mind the sarcasm :) I really only mean to point out how much
more logical an in character explanation of Dumbledore's behaviour
would be.

Valky











From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 00:19:18 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:19:18 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl5vhi+vvf4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl60q6+podn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142952


> Valky:
> There is no proof that Dumbledore 'calculated' his arrival to be
> inconvenient to the Dursely's due to the hour. And neither is it
> inferred that he was there at that time to deliberately cause
> inconvenience. In fact we are even assuming that it *was* so
> inconvenient to the Dursleys that he arrived at 11:00pm, even they
> don't mention it.

a_svirn:
You are confusing me with someone else. I never said that Dumbledore 
came at 11. But we do know that he came too late, because Petunia 
was wearing her night-gear. If he wasn't calculating, than he was 
careless of proprieties. Take your pick.  

> Valky:
> I think your reasoning is false here, Dumbledore does have claim on
> their hospitality. And he is not a stranger.
> 
> You say there is no reason at all Lady C shouldn't become because 
she
> is a Patroness of the Head of House's relative? What's Dumbledore
> then, a wet teabag? Dumbledore is a patron of Harry's school of
> Harry's world he is a Patron of the head of Household's relative - 
by
> your own reasoning you are agreeing with me - Dumbledore is 
obliged to
> call in. Are you now going to say that harry's relationship to the
> Dursley's doesn't exist?

a_svirn:
Dumbledore IS a stranger to the Dursleys. He has no claim on their 
hospitality because they don't want to have anything to do with his 
world and with magic. Quite unlike Mrs Bennett who was more than 
happy to claim acquaintance with Lady Catharine. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> > In fact, if it had been just a social call it would 
> > have been a very pretty gesture.
> 
> Valky:
> Then surely you can see how the same goes for Dumbledore? No?
> 
a_svirn:
Surely. Except that his is not a social call. 
 
> Valky:
> Dumbledore didn't ignore the Dursleys. All Dumbledore *ignores*, if
> you care to reunite yourself with the text, is the Dursley's
> embarassing themselves with their wanton greed and stupidity.

a_svirn:
Would you care to elaborate? 

 
> Valky:
>I can't honestly
> understand where you'd get the notion that the writer strove for 
such
> a wholly contradictory character flaw. 

a_svirn:
You shouldn't address this particular rebuke to me. I am not the one 
who wrote the book. 






From homeboys at adelphia.net  Sun Nov 13 00:39:48 2005
From: homeboys at adelphia.net (Adesa)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:39:48 -0500
Subject: Why Do You Read the HP Books?
Message-ID: <12585623.1131842388396.JavaMail.root@web9.mail.adelphia.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142953

And might I add that Rowling's respect for children is probably a big factor for her younger readers, even if they don't realize it. Very few adults treat children as younger, less experienced *people*. They are usually dismissed with little consideration because they are "just kids," when they do in fact have something of value to offer. And as I'm realizing, they oftentimes have even *more* to offer than the adults around them.

Have you ever spent time with a young person, holding a *real* conversation with them, ignoring their age and assuming them to be an equal? They eat it up, because adults so rarely do just that. But they love it and they'll love you for doing it. Kids know when they're being respected and they appreciate it. Rowling treats Harry with respect, thereby bestowing that respect on her readers. Of *course* her fans will be loyal.

~Adesa~
"No matter how much I try to be plain, people don't accept me, so I might as well be fabulous." Austin Scarlett
 



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 02:10:20 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:10:20 -0000
Subject: ...once again Dumbledore!Abuse  - a Balanced Approach
In-Reply-To: <dl5vha+84ro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl67ac+5auh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142954

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > ...especially since Dumbledore is trying to downplay his         
> > personal interest in Harry (something that ends at the          
> > conclusion of OotP, IIRC).

> >>a_svirn:
> Somehow I didn't notice that he ever tried anything of the sort.

Betsy Hp:
I thought Dumbledore said he was doing just that in OotP, but he was 
only talking of that specific year. (To which I say darn, because it 
was excellent canon, in my head. <g>)  However, until HBP, 
Dumbledore does little to unquestionably show an interest in Harry.  
It's other professors (usually Snape) who try and keep Harry safe.  
Dumbledore rarely visits with Harry during the school year.  And his 
annual hospital visits generally occur after visiting hours.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > That Harry uses his newly discovered power to intimidate Dudley 
> > into leaving him alone, and his new connections to let the      
> > Dursleys know that there are folks watching out for him, is      
> > Harry's business. It's an internal struggle rather than an       
> > outside one. If that makes any sense.

> >>a_svirn:
> I don't see what difference it makes for the Dursleys. From where
> they are standing they are still being intimidated by wizards.
> Whether the wizards in question are aurors or convicts is of little
> importance to them. The point is that they are all magical and the
> Dursleys don't want to have anything to do with magic.

Betsy Hp:
But Harry is family.  So yes, there's a power struggle (one Dudley 
pretty much gives up on by book 3, I think), but it's a family 
struggle.  I think it would have made a difference, especially at 
first before the Dursleys saw Harry as a sort of their own, if a 
stranger had come along threatening them with magic.

[That they see Harry as a sort of family is shown, I think, in the 
Dursleys desperate flight from the Hogwarts letters and in their 
being there to pick up Harry at the end of his first year at 
Hogwarts.]
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > I mean, why not just give Harry up and good riddance to bad     
> > rubbish? Why go through all the trouble of trying to hide him    
> > from the WW?]

> >>a_svirn:
> I think we know the answer to this question. Getting rid of Harry
> simply isn't an option. When Vernon had been pushed beyond        
> endurance and tried it in OOP, Dumbledore threatened Petunia,     
> didn't he? And in HBP the main object of the Dumbledore's "well-  
> mannered" visit was to ensure that Harry would be able to return   
> one last time.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but Vernon was pushed beyond his endurance in PS/SS wasn't he?  
I mean, he plucked out half his mustache in PS/SS and in OotP.  The 
big difference in OotP is that his own son has been threatened, and 
so Vernon finally decides that Harry is too big a risk.  Though he 
is talked out of it pretty easily by Petunia (a few words and he 
changes his mind).

It is a bit of mess, though, I agree.  That's why I'm hoping Petunia 
will give us some information to tie it all together.  Maybe there 
was a deal that they'd take Harry in but absolutely no wizards could 
come by until he was eleven?

Betsy Hp







From va32h at comcast.net  Sun Nov 13 02:02:18 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:02:18 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dl5buj+iku6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl66ra+c5u7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142955

> Janelle:
 One thought that my sister had when we were discussing this
> last summer was Tom Riddle's award for special services to the 
school.
>  Granted, it could merely have been serving the purpose of giving Ron
> a way to recognize the name, allowing Harry and Ron to figure
> everything out at the end of Chamber of Secrets, but I think it's
> possible that it could be important in other ways, namely as a 
horcrux.


va32h here:

My problem with the Award for Special Services is that it bears the 
name of Tom Riddle - a name which Voldemort despises. 

On the other hand, the diary had Tom's name on it as well, and 
Voldemort might appreciate the irony of the award he essentially 
received for hoodwinking the school being used to trick them again. 

But again - how would Voldemort have had access to the award, to make 
it a horcrux? 

When watching the scene with Dumbledore and Voldemort in the Pensieve, 
Harry sees Voldemort's hand twitch toward his pocket. I wonder if 
Voldemort performed some sort of nonverbal spell to acquire or create 
a horcrux right there in Dumbledore's office. 

va32h 








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 03:11:39 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:11:39 -0000
Subject: Standards of writing  ( some minor spoilers for Ulysses and LOTR)
In-Reply-To: <dku81b+alb0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6atb+rcfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142956

> Carol responds:
> As an editor and a former English teacher, I have to disagree. 
There
> *are* objective criteria by which to judge good writing. In the 
case
> of fiction, they include a fully developed plot in which events 
follow
> logically from what precedes them; clear, concise sentences with
> varied sentence structure; precise, concrete diction that enables 
the
> reader to visualize the characters, setting, and action; realistic,
> natural-sounding dialogue that fits the characters; and (most
> important) memorable and distinctive characters. 

Alla:

Carol, I had been thinking about this topic for a couple days 
because at first I was inclined to agree with you more than I was 
with Lupinlore (funnily enough :-)), but now I am afraid I am back 
to my agreement with Lupinlore, well, at least partial agreement. :-)

Again, my perspective is the perspective of the reader, the one who 
educated herself about the literary theory, but definitely not on 
your level, not on the academic level, I mean.

I guess I have to say that I DO think that there are quite common 
signs of genuinely BAD writing and by BAD writing I mean, I don't 
know - some of the very crappy fan fiction, which I open up by 
accident and may read a few pages for laughs. When I, non-native 
speaker, who makes quite a few grammar and stylistic mistakes, think 
that I could write much better than some fan fiction writers do, I 
think it is a pretty good sign that their writing is bad, although 
even on that level some people may disagree, I suppose.

BUT when we go into the world of published writing, I think that the 
things get VERY subjective, very fast.

You listed several criteria of the good writing, but my question to 
you would be who determines those criteria and who determines 
whether certain writer's work fits those criteria?

You list "fully developed plot" as first criteria. Several months 
ago I attempted to read James Joyce " Ulysses" ( I actually finished 
it, but it was quite painful for me :-)) Erm... if you ask me about 
plot of this novel, I really cannot answer, except two people 
walking around Dublin and stopping by different places. And I heard 
that this novel is considered to be one of the very best works of 
English literature. This was actually the reason I picked it up in 
the first place - I consider myself to be very well versed in the 
field of Russian literature, but in English/American literature I 
have so many gaps still and I am trying to do away with as many of 
them as I can. :-)
So, yeah, if you ask me what do I think about " Ulysses" ( am I even 
spelling it right?) My answer to you would be that I SO wasted my 
time reading it. I was not satisfied with it, true, BUT I also did 
not think that the novel was well written, because among other thing 
I could not visualize characters and setting at all.

Other criteria I want to talk about are "memorable and distinctive 
characters". Yeah, I would probably agree with you - FOR ME, it is a 
criterion which determines a good writing. But I think that it is 
incredibly subjective too.

For example , take Lord of the Rings. I DO love this book for the 
world Tolkien created , I really do, I love his language, which as I 
mentioned in my earlier posts sounds like music to my ears, BUT at 
the same time I find his characters except Boromir and probably 
Gollum to be quite BLAH. Now many people will disagree with this 
statement, but I do feel this way AND what most important for the 
purpose of this argument - it does not stop me from loving the book 
( the fact that I find most Tolkien's characters to be bland).


Now I actually agree with you a lot as to JKR's writing. Here would 
be a good time to thank Steve for his wonderful essay and to say 
that I agree with the most of what he wrote.  I think it is very 
good, because we can visualize the world and the settings, and 
especially because I can " feel" the characters, it touches me on 
very deep level.
At the same time, there are those who  think that her characters are 
often sacrificed in favor of the plot development. Now, I don't feel 
nearly as strongly as say...Lupinlore does on this subject. :-) For 
me, for example, recently much discussed Dumbledore's speech in HBP 
was enough to love the character all over again (for the most part 
anyway)and I REALLY needed it after OOP, but I DO think that Albus' 
character development suffered a lot in favor of plot development ( 
again, the best example to me would be his OOP speech obviously, I 
can also bring up him never visiting Sirius in prison, etc.) 

Another example of sacrificing  the character development in favor 
of plot development to me would be Lupin staying away from Harry in 
HBP. Now, do not get me wrong, I have very little criticism to offer 
about HBP, I loved probably 90% of this book, or more, BUT I do 
think that character wise it makes very little sense for Remus to 
stay away from the only child of his two best friends, who needs 
him.. well quite badly IMO. Now, of course Remus was on the mission, 
but was  the plot going to suffer a lot if Remus was not on the 
mission? Not in my opinion, but as JKR said in her opinion it is 
more interesting if hero has to do his job alone ( paraphrase) and 
here we have Remus on  the mission.

So, the opinions on JKR creating well developed characters could 
differ too. Personally, I love her characters and this is the main 
reason I read her work, probably, but that is subjective too IMO.

Carol:
<snip>
> If I could do so without abandoning professionalism, I would quote 
you
> some genuinely bad writing from a manuscript I'm currently
> editing--extremely wordy sentences, the same phrases (e.g., "he 
reined
> in his mount") over and over, pompous diction, unrealistic and
> unnatural dialogue, stereotyped characters, unbelievable situations
> (even given the fantasy genre) extended descriptions in purple 
prose.
> This is not merely my opinion of what constitutes bad writing. >

Alla:

I guess I have to ask again. Whose opinion is it then? Literary 
critics? Why their opinion should count as more objective than mine 
for example? :-) 

I want to go back to " Ulysses" for example. I think it has 
extremely wordy sentences, pompous diction, unrealistic  and  
unnatural dialogue. Do you think it is bad writing? I am quite 
serious here.



Carol:
<SNIP>
"Well-written" (determinable by
> specific criteria) is not the same as "satisfying" (a wholly
> subjective judgment).


Alla:

I actually think today that it overlaps quite significantly.


JMO obviously,

Alla, who apologizes if she was not clear enough, because her 
opinions on that subject are changing often. :-)








From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 13 03:14:21 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:14:21 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl60q6+podn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6b2e+gu9l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142957


> a_svirn:
> You are confusing me with someone else. I never said that Dumbledore 
> came at 11. But we do know that he came too late, because Petunia 
> was wearing her night-gear. If he wasn't calculating, than he was 
> careless of proprieties. Take your pick.  

Valky:
I answered that upthread, my pick is neither but it's closer to
carelessness than calculating. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142756



> a_svirn:
> Dumbledore IS a stranger to the Dursleys. He has no claim on their 
> hospitality because they don't want to have anything to do with his 
> world and with magic. Quite unlike Mrs Bennett who was more than 
> happy to claim acquaintance with Lady Catharine. 

Valky:
The problem is that there desire to not be involved in the Magical
World is not evident all their actions from Dumbledore's point of
view. It is evident that they want to deny Harry his heritage, and
that Petunia has had a falling out with her sister. But their reasons,
however we have them, are never given so explicitly to Dumbledore.
Dumbledore has, in fact, evidence to the contrary since Petunia has
accepted both his correspondences and Harry who is, by all accounts, a
link to the magical world for the Dursley family.

It could be said that from Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was
grudgingly willing to claim her acquaintance with the Wizard world,
she did so and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger. They do have
something to do with the Wizard world, and it's not clear exactly why
they do so when they don't want to. Dumbledore isn't required to sort
out their internal conflict of interest for them, as long as they keep
that's their business, he is due their hospitality and only they can
change that with an unequivocal goodbye to all of it.

This train of thought leads us right back to our difference of opinion
about the howler so I had better offer my position on that while I am
here:

a_svirn:
I think we know the answer to this question. Getting rid of Harry
simply isn't an option. When Vernon had been pushed beyond endurance
and tried it in OOP, Dumbledore threatened Petunia, didn't he? 

Valky:
No, there is no determination in the text, AFAIK, that the Howler was
a threat of any kind. It was precisely an ominous reminder of 'some
thing' the nature of which we just do not know.


> > Valky:
> > All Dumbledore *ignores* <snip> is the Dursley's
> > embarassing themselves with their wanton greed and stupidity.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Would you care to elaborate? 

Valky:
Gladly ;D
Dumbledore turns his attention from the Dursleys to speak to Harry
after he has greeted them, offered some banter for good measure, sat
down and offered the gift of a fine bottle of his favourite drink to
them. He addresses Harry and answers Vernons questions, patiently and
politely until Vernon says greedily "He's been left a House?" - this,
everybody ignores, naturally. <g> Later Dumbledore ignores Vernon's
muttering "preposterous" at the WW custom of coming of age at 17, and
finally he refuses to answer the ridiculously stupid objection "Us..
mistreat Dudders? What d'you?.." 

Otherwise Dumbledore gives the Dursley's full and polite
acknowledgement, and it is they who fail to reciprocate the gesture.
  

  
> > Valky:
> >I can't honestly
> > understand where you'd get the notion that the writer strove for 
> > such a wholly contradictory character flaw. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> You shouldn't address this particular rebuke to me. I am not the one 
> who wrote the book.
>

Valky:
:D Oh I don't think so. I mean specifically that assuming JKR follows,
rather than contradicts, her character arcs would be logical. And
therefore assuming that her character behaved contradictory to
character is less logical than assuming he did.

In short it is the application of logic that underlines your
considerations in this discussion that I do not understand. JKR's
application of logic is a different question altogether - although it
is a related assumption. 







From rklarreich at aol.com  Sun Nov 13 03:32:37 2005
From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:32:37 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl4r8d+njnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6c4l+69on@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142958

Colebiancardi wrote:

<merciless snip of almost entire post>

> And no one has
> addressed the fact that would LV even approve of such sappy,
> sentimental crud as love coming from his DE?  And why would LV reward
> Snape with such a boon?  Wouldn't LV worry that Snape could be turned
> by Lily to the side of the good if she lived and was given to Snape?  

Roberta now:

OK, I'll give it a shot.  As I've mentioned before, I don't believe for 
a moment that love for Lily ever motivated Snape, or that Voldemort was 
trying to save Lily for him.  However, I could see Voldemort doing 
something along those lines, not because he "approves" of something so 
sappy (of course he doesn't!), but as a reward, which would have payoff 
for him, Voldemort, later on.

Consider these two facts we know about Voldemort:

1.  He rewards those who help him (cf. Pettigrew's new hand);

2.  He manipulates and blackmails his followers using their love for 
others against them (cf. Draco in HBP).

Thus, if one of his followers rendered him a valuable service and 
wanted a potential victim saved as a "prize," I could definitely see 
Voldemort killing two birds with one stone by rewarding the follower 
with the requested prize while gaining a new hold over him.

After all, Voldemort may have no emotional understanding of love, but 
he certainly does intellectually understand its effects on others and 
how to capitalize on that.

As for Lily turning Snape to the good side (or fools' side, from 
Voldemort's point of view), I doubt that Voldemort would worry too much 
about that.  In the first place, there's his aforementioned new hold 
over Lily, and in the second, he's always half-expecting his followers 
to be untrustworthy anyway.

Roberta, who agrees with colebiancardi that Snape's real motivation 
will turn out to be more original than romantic love for anyone








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 03:58:40 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:58:40 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl6b2e+gu9l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6dlg+c08n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142959


> Valky:
> The problem is that there desire to not be involved in the Magical
> World is not evident all their actions from Dumbledore's point of
> view. It is evident that they want to deny Harry his heritage, and
> that Petunia has had a falling out with her sister. But their 
reasons,
> however we have them, are never given so explicitly to Dumbledore.
> Dumbledore has, in fact, evidence to the contrary since Petunia has
> accepted both his correspondences and Harry who is, by all 
accounts, a
> link to the magical world for the Dursley family.

a_svirn:
Their reasons are never given so explicitly to Dumbledore, because 
they are not acquainted with Dumbledore. I would even go so far as 
to say that their reasons do not interest Dumbledore.  As for the 
Dursleys' "accepting his correspondence", this is simply not true. 
Vernon Dursley even nailed down the mail slot in order NOT to accept 
any letters from the WW. If I get a junk-mail in my mail-box it 
doesn't mean that I "accept" it, now, does it? I'd say that their 
desire "not to be involved" with the WW has been made abundantly 
clear on number on occasions. 

> Valky:
> It could be said that from Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was
> grudgingly willing to claim her acquaintance with the Wizard world,
> she did so and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger. They do have
> something to do with the Wizard world, and it's not clear exactly 
why
> they do so when they don't want to. 

a_svirn:

Now you leave me practically speechless. I shall have to look up to 
the classic for assistance:

"- Contrariwise, - continued Tweedledee, - if it was so, it might  
be;
and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's 
logic".

 
> Valky:
> No, there is no determination in the text, AFAIK, that the Howler 
was
> a threat of any kind. It was precisely an ominous reminder of 'some
> thing' the nature of which we just do not know.
>

a_svirn:
 "Ominous"
 What an interesting choice of words. You know what my 
dictionary says:  

"Ominous (adjective), threatening, suggesting or indicating that 
something bad is going to happen or be revealed". 


> Valky:
> 
> Dumbledore turns his attention from the Dursleys to speak to Harry
> after he has greeted them, offered some banter for good measure, 
sat
> down and offered the gift of a fine bottle of his favourite drink 
to
> them. He addresses Harry and answers Vernons questions, patiently 
and
> politely until Vernon says greedily "He's been left a House?" - 
this,
> everybody ignores, naturally. <g> Later Dumbledore ignores Vernon's
> muttering "preposterous" at the WW custom of coming of age at 17, 
and
> finally he refuses to answer the ridiculously stupid 
objection "Us..
> mistreat Dudders? What d'you?.." 
> 
> Otherwise Dumbledore gives the Dursley's full and polite
> acknowledgement, and it is they who fail to reciprocate the 
gesture.

a_svirn:
Strange, how Harry saw it all in quite the opposite light. 






From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Nov 13 04:34:50 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 04:34:50 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl6c4l+69on@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6fpa+j7c1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142960

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rklarreich" <rklarreich at a...>
wrote:
>
> Colebiancardi wrote:
> 
> <merciless snip of almost entire post>
> 
> > And no one has
> > addressed the fact that would LV even approve of such sappy,
> > sentimental crud as love coming from his DE?  And why would LV reward
> > Snape with such a boon?  Wouldn't LV worry that Snape could be turned
> > by Lily to the side of the good if she lived and was given to Snape?  
> 
> Roberta now:
> 
> OK, I'll give it a shot.  As I've mentioned before, I don't believe for 
> a moment that love for Lily ever motivated Snape, or that Voldemort was 
> trying to save Lily for him.  However, I could see Voldemort doing 
> something along those lines, not because he "approves" of something so 
> sappy (of course he doesn't!), but as a reward, which would have payoff 
> for him, Voldemort, later on.
> 
> Consider these two facts we know about Voldemort:
> 
> 1.  He rewards those who help him (cf. Pettigrew's new hand);

colebiancardi: yes - but perhaps the rewards that LV gives is material
things, not people.  And Peter did do something that no one else has
done for LV - he gave him his life back.  Also, a one-handed Peter is
probably of no use for LV.

> 
> 2.  He manipulates and blackmails his followers using their love for 
> others against them (cf. Draco in HBP).

colebiancardi:  good point.  However, LV threatened to kill Draco's
family if he didn't do what LV ordered him to do.  This is different
from Snape asking for Lily's life to be spared....What did Snape do
that was so awesome that LV wishes to reward him?  The prophecy thing
happened the year before and since Snape was a spy for LV, I would
think that would have been chalked up as being part of Snape's job -
to find out things that would be of interest to Voldemort.  And like I
said, Snape has turned against LV prior to James and Lily's deaths. 
Why would Snape ask for Lily's life to be spared, knowing that James
and Harry would die?  What would Dumbledore make of this request, if
he knew about it?  Unless.....

It was a setup.  James went to Dumbledore and asked him what could be
done to save his wife's life.  Even though James & Lily had made the
Fidelius Charm, I could see James going to Dumbledore for additional
protection for his wife and son - this, of course, without Lily's
knowing that James is doing this.  He asked Dumbledore if there is
anything else that can be done.  Dumbledore then goes to Snape and
makes the request that Snape ask LV to spare Lily's life, under the
pretense that Snape wants Lily for himself.  Since LV will tell Lily
that she doesn't need to die, that will give her time to fight back
and save her son.  So, Snape follows DD's orders and LV agrees to it.
  Perhaps this is where the quote of "Like father, like
son.<snip>...You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe
you might be mistaken in Black..." PoA Am Edition hardcover p. 361

When Dumbledore orders Snape to request Lily's life to be spared,
perhaps Snape felt that the secret keeper was not to be trusted
afterall.  Perhaps in Snape's mind, he thought why else would James
request this if James didn't know whom he could trust?  

but that is just a theory that I am sure someone will poke holes in :-)

I just think that LV wanted a clean shot at Harry, and lied to Lily
about sparing her life - I think if LV was successful at killing
Harry, Voldemort would have then just killed Lily with no problem.  I
cannot see Snape, who is supposed to be on the good side, just asking
for Lily's life to be spared, while her husband and son will die.  If
Snape is Dumbledore's Man(which I firmly believe in), he would never
make this request.  

> 
> As for Lily turning Snape to the good side (or fools' side, from 
> Voldemort's point of view), I doubt that Voldemort would worry too much 
> about that.  In the first place, there's his aforementioned new hold 
> over Lily, and in the second, he's always half-expecting his followers 
> to be untrustworthy anyway.

colebiancardi:  so the idea is that Lily would be under the Imperius
Curse?  I think that Lily would have the "real strength of character"
that MadEye states that one needs to fight against it.  Or a love
potion?  Again, that is assuming that Snape is ESE and not DDM. 
Anyway, DD would have questioned this logic with Snape and that would
mean DD would not have trusted Snape so much, if Snape went behind
DD's back and tried to make a deal with LV just to save Lily's life,
but leaving James & Harry to die.  

LV maybe half-expecting his followers to untrustworthy, but to allow
something such as LUV to cloud his follower's judgement(and a follower
who is a SPY, no less), is stupid on LV's part.  Unlike his other
DE's, who married like-minded souls, Lily is not evil and she is
muggle-born.  LV would look at that as tainting his vision of what the
WW should look like and that Snape's request is against all of
Voldemort's principles.   

colebiancardi
(book 7 will hopefully explain all....or maybe not....)


 







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 13 05:34:17 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 05:34:17 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl6dlg+c08n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6j8p+akl5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142961


 
> a_svirn:
> ..... because 
> they are not acquainted with Dumbledore.

Valky:
O_o This seems to be the great immovable point in this discussion.
Shall we begin the "Is too! Is Not!" 's now? <vbg> 

Lets just say that I believe they are at least established as
acquainted - it might be in the barest sense, and that might seem like
not enough to many but we mustn't forget that but Harry's life is
complicated from every angle.  The alternatives to this are far less
favourable - things like abandoning Harry to the Dursleys and
forgetting about him, letting him be tracked down and killed, placing
him in the protection of good wizarding family after good wizarding
family until they are all slowly picked off to the last .... 
I acknowledge your disagreement, but as I see it the fine thread that
Dumbledore's acquaintance with Petunia hung from IMO was hard fought
enough to warrant the respect of any full fledged diplomatic alliance,
and although that it is there may be miraculous, unbelievable even, it
is nevertheless there.



a_svirn:
> I would even go so far as 
> to say that their reasons do not interest Dumbledore. 


Valky:
I'd agree with that to a point. Since the Dursleys reasons for wishing
no acquaintance with the WW are for the most superficial, bigoted and
misinformed I see plenty of reason why they shouldn't interest
Dumbledore. OTOH I truly doubt Dumbledore wouldn't care about their
genuine reasons such as fear of the danger involved. I am sure he does
care that they fear the danger, but it is their own conflict of
interest (ie nothing Dumbledore can do for them because they confuse
themselves) that they took Harry in even with that fear. Besides which
Dumbledore is better informed than them of the danger that faces the
world from Voldemort, so even with their own conflict of interest
Dumbledore is showing his concern (for EVERYONE) by doing his best for
Harry. IOW the bigger picture just does not bear out that Dumbledore
doesn't genuinely care about them. If he appears not to care it is
always by their own obstinence that it comes to that. 


a_svirn:
> As for the 
> Dursleys' "accepting his correspondence", this is simply not true.


Valky:
I specifically said Petunia, Petunia has accepted both Dumbledore's
letters addressed to her. The other correspondence you refer to was
correspondence with Harry, The Dursleys had no obligation (or right)
to accept or to refuse it as it wasn't their's.



a_svirn:
> I'd say that their 
> desire "not to be involved" with the WW has been made abundantly 
> clear on number on occasions. 

Valky:
And I'd say that their desire to *be* involved whenever it suits them
to do so has been made abundantly clear also. They involve themselves
by taking Harry in, deliberately interfering in and attempting to
stamp out his wizardness and heritage throughout his life, taking
sudden interest in Wizard world matters if it might be profitable to
do so (eg Grimmauld place). If they really did not want to be involved
the first step would be to not take Harry, as I have said. 

I know that you and I differ on what the circumstances of that
arrangement were. I, for one, can't imagine Dumbledore making brutish
threats on them to make them do it and expect that JKR has something
far more ingenious in mind to tie up this loose end than that.
 
 
> > Valky:
> > It could be said that from Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was
> > grudgingly willing to claim her acquaintance with the Wizard 
> > world, she did so and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger. They do 
> > have something to do with the Wizard world, and it's not clear  
> > exactly why they do so when they don't want to. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Now you leave me practically speechless. I shall have to look up to 
> the classic for assistance:
> 
> "- Contrariwise, - continued Tweedledee, - if it was so, it might  
> be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. 
> That's logic".

Valky:
:o  I get the sense that I am being insulted. <bg>

Just politely, since it would be very rude of me to assume you said
that simply for that sake of being venomous and sarcastic. Would you
care to elaborate? It seems you did not understand something I said. 
:)

> 
>  
> > Valky:
> > No, there is no determination in the text, AFAIK, that the Howler  
> > was a threat of any kind. It was precisely an ominous reminder of 
> > 'some thing' the nature of which we just do not know.
> >
> 
> a_svirn:
>  "Ominous"
 What an interesting choice of words. You know what my 
> dictionary says:  
> 
> "Ominous (adjective), threatening, suggesting or indicating that 
> something bad is going to happen or be revealed". 

Valky:
That's Ok, my mental dictionary, it appears, offered the wrong
adjective, the word ominous has a rather broad sort of meaning even in
your own dictionary. What I had meant by saying ominous would probably
have been demonstrated better by it's synonym portentous, but
portentous has two meanings one of which would throw us way off the
mark. Semantics are a nightmare aren't they? <g> In an attempt to wrap
the whole thing up I'll just say that I meant the howler was
frightening, but I hold short of translating that into an overt threat.
  


> a_svirn:
> Strange, how Harry saw it all in quite the opposite light.
>

Valky:
huh? When did he say that?











From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 13 07:04:49 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:04:49 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <dl384f+dp4i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl6oih+jupe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142962

Lealess wrote:
>


> 
> Legal niceties aside, what should Snape have done on the tower?  Legal
> niceties aside, should Dumbledore have ordered Harry to force-feed him
> what was, by all evidence, a lethal potion in the cave?  Shouldn't
> Harry have just turned around and said, as his conscience may have
> dictated, "Forget this -- you're wrong, there has to be another way."
> Once committed, Harry had no other way out, because Dumbledore
> insisted on pursuing his plan.
> 



Actually, I did ask him about Harry and the potion.  His response was 
that, in his opinion, this was a completely different legal situation, 
and one in which he would not even consider mounting a prosecution 
based on the available evidence.  Given what we know, there is no 
direct and incontrovertable evidence (i.e. none that a court would 
accept as proof) that the fluid in the cave was a poison, or any other 
substance controlled under the law.  Dumbledore was certainly weakened 
by it, but no more so than an elderly man might have been weakened by 
ingesting any number of perfectly legal substances.  Similarly, his 
condition on the tower is in keeping with an elderly man who has 
undergone extreme and taxing exertion, and may or may not be directly 
attributable to the potion.  In other words, in his opinion there is no 
clear and direct evidence that Dumbledore sustained significant and/or 
lasting material damage from the potion (i.e. no evidence that would be 
accepted in a court of law as being beyond a reasonable doubt, the 
standard a prosecutor would have to meet).  He offered that the fact 
that the mental effects of the potion cleared up almost immediately is 
actually a piece of evidence against the prosecution, as it establishes 
an initial presumption that the effects of the potion were temporary 
and would pass in time.  

I asked if the fact that Dumbledore called for Snape, an expert in Dark 
Objects that he has called on before, has any bearing.  His response is 
that this is at best only vague evidence, legally speaking, and absent 
any other direct statement from Dumbledore (i.e. I've been poisoned and 
I'm dying) it isn't a great deal of help to a prosecution's case.  He 
said the first thing he would do, if in charge of the case, would be to 
order an autopsy and thorough chemical analysis of Dumbledore's stomach 
contents.

Absent such evidence, he felt that the most Harry could be charged with 
would be reckless endangerment, and given the lack of incontrovertible 
evidence that his actions caused lasting or significant harm to 
Dumbledore, and given Harry's status as a minor under the law, he 
severely doubted a Grand Jury would hand down and indictment, and felt 
that the chances of obtaining a conviction would be essentially nil.  
Even if it could be shown by autopsy that the substance was a lethal 
poison, he felt that the chances of obtaining a conviction would be 
almost nil, once again given Harry's status as a minor, and given that 
a competent defense attorney could easily build a successful defense on 
the fact that Harry had no way of knowing what the potion was or what 
its effects on Dumbledore might/would be.  He pointed out that this 
contrasts completely with the case of Snape, who is an adult under the 
law and unquestionably knows that a Killing Curse causes death.

Once again, for what it's worth.


Lupinlore










From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Nov 13 05:25:32 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:25:32 -0500
Subject: A contract is a contract is a contract.
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAgqXJkkShukGKz7bpowGOjwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142963

"a_svirn:
I don't see what difference it makes for the Dursley's. From where
they are standing they are still being intimidated by wizards.
Whether the wizards in question are aurors or convicts is of little
importance to them. The point is that they are all magical and the
Dorsey's don't want to have anything to do with magic."

Bruce:
In which case they shouldn't have taken Harry in in the first place.  Nobody
forced them to.  They were given a choice.  They could have sent him to a Muggle
orphanage as Aunt Marge suggested, or they could have told DD that Harry was a
wizardling brat and that the WW should take care of him.  They didn't.  They
took him in and established a contract, one which they violated.  Having
violated it, they are fair game.  That Dumbledore didn't turn them all into
frogs is a sign of his mercy.

Bruce






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov 13 15:15:51 2005
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:15:51 EST
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
Message-ID: <1a7.43dc3bcf.30a8b2a7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142964

LV is not a bloodthirsty psychopath.  He is all about power.   James met him 
with a wand in his hand and had to be killed.  Lily was  either holding Harry 
or standing in front of him, probably wandless.   LV did not see her as a 
threat; he probably despised her as a powerless  Muggle-born and not worth 
bothering about.  I don't think he was sparing  her as a favor to SS, because that 
implies SS was deeply involved in the raid at  GH and knew the particulars.  If 
SS is redeemed (and if he is DD''s man he  is already redeemed)  then I can't 
seem him bargaining with LV to  spare Lily and kill Harry.
 
Nikkalmati







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 13 15:34:40 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:34:40 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <1a7.43dc3bcf.30a8b2a7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c5e867$c4376f50$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 142965

Nikkalmati
LV is not a bloodthirsty psychopath.  He is all about power.   James met him

with a wand in his hand and had to be killed.  
Nikkalmati



Sherry:

Really?  What would you call someone who ordered Wormtail to murder the
innocent Cedric the moment he and Harry arrived in the graveyard at the end
of GOF?  That seemed quite bloodthirsty and psychopathic to me.  and come
on, even the fact that he tried to murder baby Harry doesn't show him as
merely a power hungry person.  just my opinion, naturally.

Sherry




From ornawn at 013.net  Sun Nov 13 15:33:18 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:33:18 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
Message-ID: <dl7mbu+57vv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142966

>va32h
>When watching the scene with Dumbledore and Voldemort in the Pensieve,
>Harry sees Voldemort's hand twitch toward his pocket. I wonder if
>Voldemort performed some sort of nonverbal spell to acquire or create
>a horcrux right there in Dumbledore's office.

Orna:
I like this idea. Because otherwise there is no explanation of his 
visit there - DD tells him, he didn't really expect DD to give him the 
job. He came with his DEs along, just for a little chat with DD? So it 
sounds reasonable that either there, or on the way to the office, he 
encased a horcrux in some Hogwart's object. I think he would like the 
idea of doing it under DD's nose. And DD's office is sure the best 
place to find magical objects for his desire. 
On the other hand - magic leaves traces, and how come DD never 
detected anything about it? I would imagine the horcrux spell do be 
quite a strong one - but maybe not. 
But if not - still the question stays - what was his real purpose in 
applying for the post?

Orna















From lealess at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 17:03:42 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:03:42 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <dl6oih+jupe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl7rle+okp9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142967

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> 
> Actually, I did ask him about Harry and the potion.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Absent such evidence, he felt that the most Harry could be charged 
> with would be reckless endangerment, and given the lack of 
> incontrovertible evidence that his actions caused lasting or  
> significant harm to Dumbledore, and given Harry's status as a minor 
> under the law, he severely doubted a Grand Jury would hand down   
> and indictment, and felt that the chances of obtaining a
> conviction would be essentially nil.  
> Even if it could be shown by autopsy that the substance was a lethal 
> poison, he felt that the chances of obtaining a conviction would be 
> almost nil, once again given Harry's status as a minor, and given 
> that a competent defense attorney could easily build a successful 
> defense on the fact that Harry had no way of knowing what the potion 
> was or what its effects on Dumbledore might/would be.
> <SNIP> 
>

So, what does this make Dumbledore?  An adult who enlists a minor,
places him in a life-threatening situation for which he proves to be
largely unprepared, and orders him to contribute to what looks like
the adult's injury but certainly his incapacitation.  Is any of this
permissible under military law?  But as I remarked in an earlier
response, I am not sure our military law, or even our criminal law,
pertains to the wizarding world, where magical contracts and debts
seem to have more effect.

lealess






From lealess at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 17:17:53 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:17:53 -0000
Subject: A contract is a contract is a contract.
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAgqXJkkShukGKz7bpowGOjwEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dl7sg1+8v5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142968

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson"
<bawilson at c...> wrote:
>
> "a_svirn:
> I don't see what difference it makes for the Dursley's. From where
> they are standing they are still being intimidated by wizards.
> Whether the wizards in question are aurors or convicts is of little
> importance to them. The point is that they are all magical and the
> Dorsey's don't want to have anything to do with magic."
> 
> Bruce:
> In which case they shouldn't have taken Harry in in the first place.  
> Nobody forced them to.  They were given a choice.  They could have 
> sent him to a Muggle orphanage as Aunt Marge suggested, or they 
> could have told DD that Harry was a wizardling brat and that the
> WW should take care of him.  They didn't.  They
> took him in and established a contract, one which they violated.  
> Having violated it, they are fair game.  That Dumbledore didn't turn 
> them all into frogs is a sign of his mercy.
> 
> Bruce
>

If there was a contract, have the Dursleys violated its terms?  Let's
say there was a contract which said, take Harry in and keep him alive,
and in return, Dumbledore will put a powerful charm on the Dursley
house to protect it from Voldemort and his followers, a charm to last
as long as Harry is a minor.  If these were the terms, they have
fulfilled them to the minimum extent required.  Was accepting the
dangerous and destructive intrusions of the wizarding world, except
for Voldemort and his followers, part of the contract?  Was having
their son turned into a pig, possibly choked to death, and attacked by
Dementors part of the contract?  If they had to provide a minimum
standard of care for Harry, it seems Dumbledore should have ensured a
minimum standard of safety for the Dursleys.

Assuming Petunia was the one who accepted the contract, did she even
divulge its terms to her husband and son so that they could fulfill
it?  Did she take on the theoretical contract completely voluntarily,
i.e., without coercion or at least without having the fear put into
her head that Voldemort was likely attack her family?  We don't know
what choice they were given.

lealess






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 13 17:34:53 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:34:53 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl3tc2+gh3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl7tft+js0j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142969

Sydney:
> There's two issues with OFH! or Grey Snape, one major and one
> minor. The minor one is that Dumbledore would pretty much have to
> be lying when he says "I am certain. I trust Severus Snape
> absolutely", when what he means is "you know, so long as I have
> total control over him, he's okay, I mean, I hope he's okay, but
> let me tell you, off the leash he's pretty iffy". "Absolute trust"
> is not a phrase with a lot of wiggle room.

Jen: Actually, I see this issue of trust as more of a major problem 
with OFH or Grey Snape than a minor one, and one that is hard to 
reconcile. If we're meant to see Dumbledore's trust as his weakness 
which brought him down in the end, it *would* fit with JKR's 
character development for all the adults--all of the primary adult 
characters with the exception of Lily have been brought down one way 
or another from inside as well as out. To name just a few, Sirius by 
his recklessness, Lupin by his secrets, Peter by his cowardice, 
Voldemort by his underestimation of love magic. Dumbledore could 
join the crowd! 

I still love the idea that Dumbledore's unwavering trust in Snape 
will be proven true because it so beautifully counters his mistrust 
of Riddle, which was believed by none. 

I could also see a Dumbledore who is capable of compartmentalizing 
the Severus Snape before him as separate from Snape the DE. He 
believes his story is not only true, but changed him as well. But 
that doesn't deny Snape's past or his weaknesses, which Dumbledore 
knows all too well after 150 years, can be insidious for a person to 
overcome.

Sydney:
> The larger objection is a wavering, agonizing, side-switching
> Snape is just such a massive focus-puller.  It would make Snape,
> not Harry, making all the critical choices and going through the
> most interesting emotions at the end of the book.  Story-wise I'm
> much happier having Snape running down a pretty clear, 
> straightforward track, and Harry doing all the mind-changing.  For 
> this reason I would prefer Evil!Snape to conflicted!Snape, because
> much as I'd rather read a book about Snape, this ain't it.

Jen: I don't think it would have to be anymore agonizing than the 
adult characters in the Shrieking Shack. It's how Harry reacts to 
the truth which would be be important. JKR was more than happy to 
play up the weaknesses of Sirius, Lupin and Peter to bring about 
Harry's merciful moment!! 

That could potentially be a problem though--can Harry release his 
hatred toward Snape simply finding out he was weak in the face of 
dark magic? Not likely. Harry, like his father and godfather before 
him, has no mercy for those entrenched in the dark arts. With no 
understanding of the temptation, he wouldn't likely look on Snape 
with much more favorable eyes.  

Lupinlore:
> As such, Grey Snape is an intrinsically weak man in some
> respects.  He has neither the ruthless Machiavellian will of some
> OFH! models nor the firm nobility of character often attributed to
> DDM!  He made a huge blunder, tried to attain redemption, then
> blundered again.  He hasn't the ability to dominate or overshadow
> anything, once you understand what he is all about.  Like most
> bullies, he is essentially a coward who cannot control his own
> emotions, and deep inside he knows it.

Jen: Personally, I think the role of coward is ably filled by Peter 
and we will see another weakness bringing down Snape. Because if JKR 
is to fulfill her greatest theme of choice, Snape had a choice in 
that moment on the tower. The only way to counter that would be to 
say his choice came in the moment he decided to take the UV. Either 
way, there was a weakness involved which brought him down.

To play devil's advocate with myself <g> this is merely speculation 
but I've imagined the tower scene with someone like James in Snape's 
place. He would probably be noble & brave, would attempt to take on 
all four death eaters is my guess. Perhaps he would even attempt to 
save Draco and Draco would possibly take another step away from 
goodness to defend himself or out of fear others would tell 
Voldemort if he didn't fight. James would logically fail with no 
help, die, and not see the destruction wrought by his bravery. 

So we see that Dumbledore did not ask Harry to bring Lupin or the 
other Order members, any of the noble folks. He asked for Snape. He 
asked for the person who was bound by the UV, was not a brave person 
in the traditional sense. Dumbledore chose to land on the tower 
under the Dark Mark and called for a person whose hands are tied. 
Why?

Lupinlore:
> Now Harry is faced with the problem of what to do with a man who
> he believes to be evil and menacing who turns out to be weak and
> pathetic.  Will Harry be able, like Dumbledore, to let Snape have
> a chance to prove himself once more?  Will he be able to see 
> the "latent good qualities" in this pitiful, self-hating man who
> has destroyed his own world through his cruelty and nastiness and
> greed and cowardice? 

Jen: This seems like a viable option to me considering how ruthless 
JKR has been in showing us the faults and foibles of all the adult 
characters (the Trio too, but they tend to come out ahead <g>). At 
the worst we will find out he never truly switched sides, or even 
had a side, and his deception of Dumbledore was his greatest evil. 
At best, Snape will be portrayed as someone who attempted to be 
unwaveringly loyal to Dumbledore, even to the point of following his 
orders to kill him, but there would still be the weakness of the UV 
which brought about the whole scenario in the first place. I don't 
see how Snape can get away unscathed unless Dumbledore purposely put 
him into the DADA job and ordered him to take the UV. And then we 
would have a new set of concerns!

Jen, playing both sides of the fence it seems. 








From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Nov 13 17:39:11 2005
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:39:11 -0800
Subject: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore
Message-ID: <700201d40511130939y3e652a31y736a7b025b3c0e32@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142970

va32h
>When watching the scene with Dumbledore and Voldemort in the Pensieve,
>Harry sees Voldemort's hand twitch toward his pocket. I wonder if
>Voldemort performed some sort of nonverbal spell to acquire or create
>a horcrux right there in Dumbledore's office.

Orna:
I like this idea. Because otherwise there is no explanation of his
visit there - DD tells him, he didn't really expect DD to give him the
job. He came with his DEs along, just for a little chat with DD? So it
sounds reasonable that either there, or on the way to the office, he
encased a horcrux in some Hogwart's object. I think he would like the
idea of doing it under DD's nose. And DD's office is sure the best
place to find magical objects for his desire.
On the other hand - magic leaves traces, and how come DD never
detected anything about it? I would imagine the horcrux spell do be
quite a strong one - but maybe not.
But if not - still the question stays - what was his real purpose in
applying for the post?
---

Kemper now:
The hand twitch could have been the curse of the DADA position. But let's
the twitch was the creation of a horcrux, what item would it be? I would
guess the sword. Voldemort would not need to place any curses/protections on
the sword as it would be hidden in plain view. As far as Magic leaving
traces, the office and the school are filled with magical items and beings,
maybe it's a bit harder to see the traces when traces are all around, unlike
the cave which probably never saw any signs of magic prior to Voldemort's
taint.
-
But maybe Voldermort placed the horcrux in the school prior to entering
Dumbledore's office. It seems like one has to pass the room of requirement
on the way to Dumbledore's office. (I could be totally wrong but that's been
my read of it.) There's a nice tiara in the room that Harry uses to mark the
Half-Blood Prince's potions book. Again, a great place to hide something
without needing protections. To open the door to that particular room of
requirement one must want to hide something instead of finding something.
The room in itself is a natural, difficult protection.
-
-Kemper


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 13 18:02:20 2005
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 13 Nov 2005 18:02:20 -0000
Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat 
Message-ID: <1131904940.18.51733.m32@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142971


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Weekly Chat 

Date: Sunday, November 13, 2005 
Time: 1:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) 

Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7
pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer
Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as
long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat"
in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to
http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of
the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room,
type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If
you have any trouble, let the elves know: 
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 

Hope to see you there! 

 





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 18:15:11 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:15:11 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl3tc2+gh3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl7vrf+fo6r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142972

> Would it be such a focus puller?  I would personally find DDM!
Snape to 
> be much more intrusive and overshadowing and to threaten to make 
the 
> books about Snape, the noble and sacrificing superspy.  

Characters are interesting and draw attention when the MOVE, when 
they take decisions.  Being more heroic does not make a character 
automatically more interesting.

> Now Harry is faced with the problem of what to do with a man who 
he 
> believes to be evil and menacing who turns out to be weak and 
> pathetic.  Where oh where is the villain he set out to destroy?  
How 
> was he replaced with this pathetic, childish creature who allows 
his 
> own emotions to repeatedly be his undoing (and isn't that a 
delicious 
> irony)? 

First of all, Peter fullfills this role.  Second of all, as I laid 
out in the "What would a successful AK mean", this is not the story 
that has been set up (and I have a hard time seeing this as the 
character that has been set up, but that's more amorphous as a 
discussion).  Something about the Snape storyline revolves around 
trust and especially around some factors that Harry does not know, 
as the mystery of Snape's motivations is hit on repeatedly.

 Will Harry 
> be able, like Dumbledore, to let Snape have a chance to prove 
himself 
> once more?  Will he be able to see the "latent good qualities" in 
this 
> pitiful, self-hating man who has destroyed his own world through 
his 
> cruelty and nastiness and greed and cowardice? Once he understands 
who 
> is the adult and who is the child, will he let Snape have a chance 
at 
> redemption?  In that moment, will Harry the adult allow Snape, the 
> pathetic and broken child, to know hope once again?  
> 
> And will he let himself feel a little sharp humor of his own at 
the 
> humiliation and desperation to which his enemy has been reduced, 
having 
> to take crumbs of hope out of Harry's hand?  Will, in the end, 
Harry 
> like Frodo have grown "wise, yes wise and cruel" as he sends Snape 
to 
> almost certain doom knowing that his redemption springs from the 
> forbearance of a man he once despised as beneath his shoes?

LOL!  Wow, you really hate this character!  

I guess mostly what I'm saying is, Harry being mistaken about 
Snape's character and particularily about the essential nature of 
what happened on the tower, has, in my professional opinion, in 
terms of classical story structure, been set up pretty cleary.  And 
the end of the books will feature Harry realizing this and resolving 
into a positive relationship with Snape (maybe Snape will die one 
paragraph later, but the catharsis will happen).  I'm not saying 
it's necessarily what every reader will find the most morally 
satisfying; it's clear that will absolutely turn your stomach!  But 
brace yourself, because it's going to happen.  It's like 
Ron/Hermionie.  Whatever you might think of how they're suited, or 
however much you think Harry would be a better match, in terms of 
the structure Ron and Hermionie were what was being set up.  

-- Sydney






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 18:25:48 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:25:48 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl6j8p+akl5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl80fc+7iqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142973

> Valky:
> I specifically said Petunia, Petunia has accepted both Dumbledore's
> letters addressed to her. The other correspondence you refer to was
> correspondence with Harry, The Dursleys had no obligation (or 
right)
> to accept or to refuse it as it wasn't their's.

a_svirn:
Well, it's not true either. Petunia did not accept the letter from a 
presumptuous old man. She accepted her little orphaned nephew. And 
what do you mean by this interesting turn of the phrase "accepted 
the letter", anyway? We do not usually *accept* letters. We 
*receive* letters. We *reply* to them when we feel like it. It's 
called *correspondence*. If we don't feel like replying, why, we 
ignore them. In which case it cannot be called correspondence by any 
stretch of imagination. There is also blackmail; that's a criminal 
offence. There is junk mail and hate-mail ? that's not supposed to 
be reciprocal. Or do you mean to say that Hermione "accepted" the 
letter with bobotuber by simply opening it?

 
> Valky:
> And I'd say that their desire to *be* involved whenever it suits 
them
> to do so has been made abundantly clear also. They involve 
themselves
> by taking Harry in, deliberately interfering in and attempting to
> stamp out his wizardness and heritage throughout his life, 

a_svirn:

Confounded if I know how you arrive to this conclusion! The Dursleys 
involving themselves with wizarding affairs by trying not to have 
anything to do with magic? What would constitute their desire NOT to 
be involved with magic then? Honing Harry's magical skills? Cheering 
and applauding at his bouts of accidental magic? 


> Valky:
taking
> sudden interest in Wizard world matters if it might be profitable 
to
> do so (eg Grimmauld place). 

a_svirn:

Vernon did not interest himself with the wizarding world. He 
interested himself with his nephew and ward' financial affairs. As 
his guardian he was supposed to look into this little matter of 
inheritance in detail. I agree that he was driven by greed, rather 
than by concern for his ward's well-being, but coveting a nice bit 
of property in London is not the same thing as prying into wizarding 
affairs. 

> Valky:
If they really did not want to be involved
> the first step would be to not take Harry, as I have said. 

a_svirn:
Rowling seems to give us an entirely different view of the matter. 
Remember in PS:

 "But what should we do, Vernon? Should we write back? Tell them we 
don't want --" 
 Harry could see Uncle Vernon's shiny black shoes pacing up and down 
the kitchen. 
 "No," he said finally. "No, we'll ignore it. If they don't get an 
answer... Yes, that's best... we won't do anything....
"But --" 
 "I'm not having one in the house, Petunia! Didn't we swear when we 
took him in we'd stamp out that dangerous nonsense?"

Looks like they took in their nephew but did not agree to have a 
wizard around. 

> Valky:

>Just politely, since it would be very rude of me to assume you said
> that simply for that sake of being venomous and sarcastic. Would 
you
> care to elaborate? It seems you did not understand something I 
said. 

a_svirn:
Very well, lets do it blow-by-blow. "It could be said that from 
Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was grudgingly willing to claim 
her acquaintance with the Wizard world"  No it couldn't. "She did so 
and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger" No, she did not and yes, he 
is. "They do have something to do with the Wizard world, and it's 
not clear exactly why they do so when they don't want to". The only 
thing they have in common with wizards is Harry and it's not by 
their choice they share him with them. So, to borrow from Lewis 
Carroll again:  "as it isn't, it ain't". 
 
> Valky:
> In an attempt to wrap
> the whole thing up I'll just say that I meant the howler was
> frightening, but I hold short of translating that into an overt 
threat.

a_svirn:
Very well, it was a covert threat. Does it make it any better?








From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Nov 13 18:45:28 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:45:28 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl80fc+7iqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl81k8+k4pr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142974

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
> > Valky:
> > I specifically said Petunia, Petunia has accepted both Dumbledore's
> > letters addressed to her. The other correspondence you refer to was
> > correspondence with Harry, The Dursleys had no obligation (or 
> right)
> > to accept or to refuse it as it wasn't their's.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Well, it's not true either. Petunia did not accept the letter from a 
> presumptuous old man. She accepted her little orphaned nephew. And 
> what do you mean by this interesting turn of the phrase "accepted 
> the letter", anyway? We do not usually *accept* letters. We 
> *receive* letters. We *reply* to them when we feel like it. It's 
> called *correspondence*. If we don't feel like replying, why, we 
> ignore them. In which case it cannot be called correspondence by any 
> stretch of imagination. There is also blackmail; that's a criminal 
> offence. There is junk mail and hate-mail ? that's not supposed to 
> be reciprocal. Or do you mean to say that Hermione "accepted" the 
> letter with bobotuber by simply opening it?
> 

colebiancardi:  I've been trying to say out of this topic, but I can't
help myself here :-)  By accepting Harry, Petunia also accepted the
terms that DD outlined in the letter.  She could have dumped Harry off
at the orphanage if she didn't agree to the terms in the letter. 
There was no love lost between Petunia & Lily, so why did she keep
Harry?  Something in the letter told her in was in the Dursley's best
interests to keep him there at Privit Drive, IMHO.   I view the letter
that was attached to Harry as a binding contract of some sorts - if
Petunia agreed to keep Harry, she also agreed to follow the letter's
instructions.  

DD's scene with the Dursley's in HBP was an admonishment of the
Durlsey's failure to adhere to the instructions outlined in the
letter.  He had expressed that they treat & raise Harry as if he was
one of their own, which they had not.  

As far as Harry being uncomfortable in the scene, well, he is the one
that has to return there, not DD.  The Dursley's can and have made his
life very uncomfortable in the past - I think that Harry just wanted
to go because he was eager to get back to *his world*, where he could
be with his friends.

colebiancardi
(throwing in my 2 knuts...)








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 18:53:40 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:53:40 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl81k8+k4pr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl823k+i6u7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142975

 
> colebiancardi:  I've been trying to say out of this topic, but I 
can't
> help myself here :-)  By accepting Harry, Petunia also accepted the
> terms that DD outlined in the letter.  

a_svirn:
Which terms? Dumbledore didn't mention any. 



 > colebiancardi:  
> 
> DD's scene with the Dursley's in HBP was an admonishment of the
> Durlsey's failure to adhere to the instructions outlined in the
> letter.  He had expressed that they treat & raise Harry as if he 
was
> one of their own, which they had not.  

a_svirn:

Which calls for interesting question: just why should Vernon and 
Petunia Dursley adhere to Albus Dumbledore's "instructions"? Apart 
from the fact that he can turn them into frogs if they don't?







From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Nov 13 19:09:29 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:09:29 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl823k+i6u7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8319+n9ah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142976

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
>  
> > colebiancardi:  I've been trying to say out of this topic, but I 
> can't
> > help myself here :-)  By accepting Harry, Petunia also accepted the
> > terms that DD outlined in the letter.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Which terms? Dumbledore didn't mention any. 
> 

arrgg...you are making me chew up my posts! Dumbledore HAS mentioned
them, and there are plenty of references in the last 2 books:

p. 55 Am Ed Hardcover HBP:
Harry, whom Lord Voldemort has already attempted to kill on a number
of occasions, is in even greater danger now than the day when I left
him upon your doorstep 15 years ago, with a letter explaining about
his parent's murder and expressing the hope tha tyou would care for
him as though he were your own."

DD later states(same page) "You did not do as I asked.  You have never
treated Harry as a son.  He has known nothing but neglect and often
cruelty at your hands.  The best that can be said is that he has at
least escaped the appalling damage you have inflicted upon the
unfortunate boy sitting between you"

more...
"However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however
unbadly treated, you have at least, grudgingly allowed him houseroom."

from OotP, american ed. hardcover p. 836
"But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you
grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you,
and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you.  Your
mother's sacrifice mad the bond of blood the strongest shield I could
give you."...<snip>"He(LV) shed her(Lily) blood, but it lives on in
you and her sister.  Her blood because your refuge.   You need return
there only once a year, but as long as you can still cal it home,
there he cannot hurt you.  Your aunt knows this.  I explained what I
had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep.  She knows
that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past
15 years."

more...same page..about the Howler.
"I thought," said DD, inclining his head slightly, "that she might
need reminding of the pact she had sealed by taking you."


> 
> 
>  > colebiancardi:  
> > 
> > DD's scene with the Dursley's in HBP was an admonishment of the
> > Durlsey's failure to adhere to the instructions outlined in the
> > letter.  He had expressed that they treat & raise Harry as if he 
> was
> > one of their own, which they had not.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Which calls for interesting question: just why should Vernon and 
> Petunia Dursley adhere to Albus Dumbledore's "instructions"? Apart 
> from the fact that he can turn them into frogs if they don't?
>
see the last quote - Petunia agreed - it sealed a pact.  And yes, she
is afraid of what the WW will do to them if they don't let Harry stay
- Petunia, once receiving the *reminder* from DD, states to Vernon
that Harry stays.  And that is that.

colebiancardi







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 19:28:44 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:28:44 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl7vrf+fo6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl845c+9sjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142977

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

> First of all, Peter fullfills this role.  Second of all, as I laid 
> out in the "What would a successful AK mean", this is not the story 
> that has been set up...

Funny how all of us seem utterly unable to agree on exactly what the 
story that has been set up *is*. :)

It depends on what threads of the story each reader emphasises and 
prefers to see as important, which with the release of each book, may 
or may not be the ones which the author decides to spend time on, or 
which the author agrees with at all.  I remember back to the group 
before the release of OotP, and almost no one guessed the direction 
of the series correctly then: no one expected the kind of tense, 
claustrophobic book without the reconciliation plot (so common in 
fanfiction).  Likewise, a lot of shippers were horribly disappointed 
this time around, and things are (at a minimum) ambiguous.  Some 
readers came out with sympathy for one character, and many others for 
the polar opposite.

Regarding Grey!Snape, if you read with an emphasis upon his more 
positive qualities, you end up with one idea of "what the story that 
has been set up is".  If you read with an eye towards his more 
negative ones, you get a distinctly different situation.

So consider this a plea for marking discussions of structure with the 
plural marker.  I can support my story just as well as anyone else 
can--for the present.

-Nora keeps a kind of mental map of possibilities in her head, and 
admits that HBP forced her to hit the 'undelete' key on a number of 
things she'd relegated to the recycle bin






From penhaligon at gmail.com  Sun Nov 13 19:40:00 2005
From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:40:00 -0800
Subject: overlooked Gryffindor relic?
Message-ID: <bbbf1a880511131140p75cc10acmc79141edad735e0b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142978

We are told over and over that Gryffindor's sword is the only known object
that can be tied to Godric Gryffindor. But I think we may have overlooked
the obvious--the Sorting Hat. We know that Godric whipped the hat off of his
head to be the Sorting Hat--this from the hat itself.

That said, is it possible that the hat could be a horcrux? We know that Tom
and Dippett were close, and I can imagine Tom spending time in the
headmaster's study, the same way that Harry has been a visitor to
Dumbledore's study.

Could it be possible that the Sorting Hat is a horcrux?

Penhaligon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 20:25:12 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:25:12 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl8319+n9ah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl87f8+g6j3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142979

 > colebiancardi
> arrgg...you are making me chew up my posts! Dumbledore HAS 
mentioned
> them, and there are plenty of references in the last 2 books: 
<snip>

  And yes, she
> is afraid of what the WW will do to them if they don't let Harry 
stay
> - Petunia, once receiving the *reminder* from DD, states to Vernon
> that Harry stays.  And that is that.
> 
a_svirn:
Apart from the "reminder of the pact" all the other quotes you cited 
do not mention any terms or agreements.  I've yet to know 
that "expressing the hope" means outlining the terms of 
contract.  "You did not do as I asked" again ? "asked", not you "did 
not do as we agreed". Strange isn't it? If there was any contract 
signed then why didn't Dumbledore mention it in his little homily? 

Yes, we know that by taking Harry Petunia sealed the charm.  She 
agreed to provide a protection in a form of a houseroom. She did not 
agree to love him as her own. She did not agree to raise him as a 
wizard. On the contrary she and Vernon swore that they won't have 
anything to do with the WW. We don't know why she took Harry, but if 
you are right and she's indeed afraid of reprisals in case she 
violates the terms of this hypothetical contract the most obvious 
conclusion we can make is that she was intimidated into "sealing the 
pact" in the first place. 

So I would like to repeat my question: what *terms* did Dumbledore 
outline in his letter according to you?  








From kjones at telus.net  Sun Nov 13 20:30:35 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:30:35 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting
 perspective
In-Reply-To: <dl7rle+okp9@eGroups.com>
References: <dl7rle+okp9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4377A26B.9020408@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142980

lealess wrote:

> So, what does this make Dumbledore?  An adult who enlists a minor,
> places him in a life-threatening situation for which he proves to be
> largely unprepared, and orders him to contribute to what looks like
> the adult's injury but certainly his incapacitation.  Is any of this
> permissible under military law?  But as I remarked in an earlier
> response, I am not sure our military law, or even our criminal law,
> pertains to the wizarding world, where magical contracts and debts
> seem to have more effect.
> 
> lealess

   KJ writes:

      I rather like Criminal Negligence, which is defined as doing 
anything or omitting to do anything that is his duty to do, thus showing 
wanton disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. This would 
certainly apply to the cave scene where Harry could easily have been 
left alone to deal with the Inferi on his own. He would not have survived.

      There is also Conspiracy to Commit Murder according to the 
conversation held in OotP. "So does that mean that one of us has got to 
kill the other in the end?"
  "Yes" said Dumbledore
      This could also be charged under a different section of 
Counselling to Commit an Offense.

      Then there is Obstruction of a Peace Officer, in OotP when he 
refused to be arrested by the aurors, and again when he jinxed Dawlish 
to prevent him from following on the orders of the MoM in HBP.

      There is also Theft of the horcruxes which come under the section 
for taking something with the intention to deal with it in such a manner 
that it cannot be restored to the same condition it was in when it was 
taken.

      There is Section 335, Taking of a Vessel with the intention of 
operating it without the owners consent with regard to Voldemort's boat 
in the cave.

      Then there is breaking and entering, under the section that 
invovles the actual commission of an offense (theft of horcrux).

      Finally, I would think that Contributing to the Delinquency of a 
Minor would be relatively easy to prove, starting with the invisibility 
cloak and proceeding to the counselling of murder.

      In fact, having given this some thought, I would proceed with 
Snape's defense on the grounds that he was attempting to put an end to 
this one man crime wave. *snicker*
KJ




From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Nov 13 20:48:16 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:48:16 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl87f8+g6j3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl88qg+c37f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142981

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
>  > colebiancardi
> > arrgg...you are making me chew up my posts! Dumbledore HAS 
> mentioned
> > them, and there are plenty of references in the last 2 books: 
> <snip>
> 
>   And yes, she
> > is afraid of what the WW will do to them if they don't let Harry 
> stay
> > - Petunia, once receiving the *reminder* from DD, states to Vernon
> > that Harry stays.  And that is that.
> > 
> a_svirn:
> Apart from the "reminder of the pact" all the other quotes you cited 
> do not mention any terms or agreements.  I've yet to know 
> that "expressing the hope" means outlining the terms of 
> contract.  "You did not do as I asked" again ? "asked", not you "did 
> not do as we agreed". Strange isn't it? If there was any contract 
> signed then why didn't Dumbledore mention it in his little homily? 
> 
> Yes, we know that by taking Harry Petunia sealed the charm.  She 
> agreed to provide a protection in a form of a houseroom. She did not 
> agree to love him as her own. She did not agree to raise him as a 
> wizard. On the contrary she and Vernon swore that they won't have 
> anything to do with the WW. We don't know why she took Harry, but if 
> you are right and she's indeed afraid of reprisals in case she 
> violates the terms of this hypothetical contract the most obvious 
> conclusion we can make is that she was intimidated into "sealing the 
> pact" in the first place. 
> 
> So I would like to repeat my question: what *terms* did Dumbledore 
> outline in his letter according to you?
>

well, I thought I had covered the terms in my post at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142976.  I am not
sure what else you are looking for - I don't have DD's letter - all we
have is what we read in the book.  The terms outlined in the letter
was the request that the Dursley's take Harry in and the wish that
Harry be raised as the Dursley's own son.  DD also explained that if
they agreed to take Harry in(and there may be more, we don't know),
Petunia sealed the agreement and Harry must be allowed to stay over
for at least one night in the Dursley's home until he is 17.  

I don't think Petunia was forced into doing this.  I never stated
that.  What I stated is that once she agreed to DD's terms in the
letter - and see above for my paragraph of the terms, plus the post
that lists the canon - she had to abid to it, otherwise, there might
be ramifications by breaking the pact.  Perhaps something out of DD's
control - perhaps LV could target the Dursley's if the pact, once
made, was broken.  The wish bit about Harry being treated as their own
son, was just that - a desire that DD hoped they would do.  But they
did not.  Nor did I state anywhere that the Dursley's had to raise
Harry as a wizard, nor did DD ask them to.  I am not sure where that
is coming from, as I never stated that.  Perhaps you are confusing me
with another poster?  

The Dursley's did only what was necessary once they agreed to take
Harry in.

And yes, my quotes did state that DD explained it in the letter.  The
quote from OotP goes over the pact, which were the terms IF Petunia
took Harry in.  and from HBP, page 35 - DD also mentions the letter
that was included with baby Harry, explaining his parent's murder and
expressing the hope that they would care for Harry as one of their
own.  What more do you need?  

It is like a job - if you only do what is required to skate on by, you
will not get a raise - matter of fact, you may be out of a job soon. 
However, if you go above & beyond what is required of you, you get a
raise, you get the promotion.   Dumbledore is not the type of person
who "forces" anyone to do anything that they do not wish to do - he
gives them a choice.  The Dursley's chose unwisely with their
treatment of Harry.  They were subhuman in their manner towards Harry,
despite DD's plea to them in the letter to treat him in a good manner,
like their own son.  That was DD's admonishment to them.  They didn't
treat Harry as a son.  They didn't behave as decent human beings and
he let them know it.  In America, people like the Dursley's get thrown
in jail for the indifference and mistreatment of children.  A few
glasses of mead knocking on the Dursley's heads, pales in comparsion
what RL would have done to them.  At DD gave them a choice there too -
they didn't have to drink the mead, just acknowledge the drinks and
hold them in their hands. 

colebiancardi







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 21:23:36 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:23:36 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl845c+9sjc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8aso+93cv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142982

> I remember back to the group 
> before the release of OotP, and almost no one guessed the 
direction 
> of the series correctly then: no one expected the kind of tense, 
> claustrophobic book without the reconciliation plot (so common in 
> fanfiction).  

Well, it's nearly impossible to make guesses about the MIDDLE of a 
story, it's pretty much open territory, so long as it converges back 
to a resolution of the tensions set up in the first part.  I will 
say that the rage and cut-offness and no-one-understands-me angle 
could have been predicted by simply asking oneself what was typical 
of a 15-year-old boy.  That's how I assumed the love stuff would set 
the tone for 6, and why many people predicted love potions: it's 
what you expect 16-year-olds to be obsessed about.  Likewise I 
suppose book 7 will somehow fit in a theme of coming into freedom 
and power, and having to make adult choices about things, because 
it's the finale of a series about developing from childhood to 
adulthood.


> Regarding Grey!Snape, if you read with an emphasis upon his more 
> positive qualities, you end up with one idea of "what the story 
that 
> has been set up is".  If you read with an eye towards his more 
> negative ones, you get a distinctly different situation.

Argh, cleary I'm not expressing myself very well!  This has ALMOST 
NOTHING to do with Snape's specific qualities as a personality-- 
it's why I brought up Pettigrew, whom nearly everybody loathes.  
It's about the RELATIONSHIP between Harry and Snape.  As the central 
relationship, it's bound to undergo a reversal in the finale, just 
as it was bound to reach it's lowest point at the end of the 2nd 
act.  Now it could be a simple revenge narrative (with or without 
forgiveness from Harry, this is actually more of a character choice 
than a structural choice).  We're all used to seing the 'reversal' 
in a revenge story, where Our Hero has been the underdog in a 
relationship, and then the tables turn, and the hero has power over 
the antagonist.  No doubt this is where the 'Snape as villain' 
expectation comes from and no doubt JKR has used it to enhance the 
red-herring role of Snape.  However, in my opinion, the 'power' 
aspect has been played as far secondary to the trust and 
misunderstanding aspect, which is where the primary tensions have 
been left open.  It's also where the 'key' has been established 
before, by having Harry misunderstood Snape's actions waaay back in 
Book 1, and has misunderstood them in every subsequent book. Harry 
being thwarted in 'defeating' or revenging himself on Snape has, 
IMO, simply not been established as the through-line which is to be 
resolved.


> So consider this a plea for marking discussions of structure with 
the 
> plural marker.  

Naturally this is all 'IMO'.  

Sydney, who thought the Ladbroke's odds on 'good Snape' would be a 
bit disappointing, but is now hopeful of making a packet if enough 
people really ARE buying evil!Snape.






From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Nov 13 21:26:42 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:26:42 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective
In-Reply-To: <4377A26B.9020408@telus.net>
Message-ID: <dl8b2i+ul2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142983

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <kjones at t...> wrote:

<snipping a most wonderous & humorous post - big grin>

>       In fact, having given this some thought, I would proceed with 
> Snape's defense on the grounds that he was attempting to put an end to 
> this one man crime wave. *snicker*
> KJ
>

ahh...That explains it!  That could be Snape's defense; afterall the
MoM viewed DD as a threat to their authority and NOW we have proof of
it - neatly packaged up :)  And not to mention, that Harry had formed
an army to destroy another wizard - Dumbledore's Army.  That nails it :)

colebiancardi
(using up all of her posts but really loved KJ's response)







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 21:50:04 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:50:04 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl8aso+93cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8cec+65mp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142984

> >>Sydney:
> <snip>
> We're all used to seing the 'reversal' in a revenge story, where  
> Our Hero has been the underdog in a relationship, and then the    
> tables turn, and the hero has power over the antagonist.  No doubt 
> this is where the 'Snape as villain' expectation comes from and no 
> doubt JKR has used it to enhance the red-herring role of Snape.   
> However, in my opinion, the 'power' aspect has been played as far  
> secondary to the trust and misunderstanding aspect, which is where 
> the primary tensions have been left open.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'll add that I don't think Snape has had much power over Harry 
throughout the series.  Other than a few detentions Snape hasn't 
even had much authority over Harry.  Any time he's tried to do so 
he's been shot down either by Dumbledore or McGonagall or Lupin or 
Fake!Moody or Sirius.  And Harry has shown that he doesn't see Snape 
as an authority figure by refusing to call him by his title.  By HBP 
Harry is openly answering back to Snape.

So it's hard for me to see their relationship as so unequal as to 
place Harry as the underdog awaiting a reversal.  Of course when it 
comes to fighting Snape is the stronger wizard, but that doesn't 
seem to be the direction JKR is taking her story.  (Or at least, 
it's a little late in the day to suddenly send Harry to wizarding 
boot camp, IMO.)

Betsy Hp







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 21:53:29 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:53:29 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl8aso+93cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8ckp+krk2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142985

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> Argh, cleary I'm not expressing myself very well!  This has ALMOST 
> NOTHING to do with Snape's specific qualities as a personality-- 
> it's why I brought up Pettigrew, whom nearly everybody loathes.  
> It's about the RELATIONSHIP between Harry and Snape.

Yes, but even your view of the RELATIONSHIP between Harry and Snape 
is very strongly influenced by your perception of what both 
characters are, which naturally has to do with their specific 
qualities.

Otherwise we fall into an ersatz generalized structuralism, and I 
don't need any more Joseph Campbell in my life. :)  (Nobody does.)

> As the central relationship, it's bound to undergo a reversal in 
> the finale, just as it was bound to reach it's lowest point at the 
> end of the 2nd act.

I suppose that's one default possible structural model, but I'm far 
less more comfortable than I used to be that it's now 'bound' to go 
that way.  Maybe if it had remained on anything close to the same 
parameters that it was following, but those got blown apart with a 
BANG (unless one is intent upon arguing for a line of thought which 
retrospectively mitigates said BANG).  I'm particularly unfond (I 
admit) of the view that wants to smooth characters out and normalize 
them and make everything into a nice coherent line.

I wouldn't disagree that trust has been one of the major themes in 
the series, but the combination of factors I find most compelling 
doesn't necessarily point to a Snape-positive outcome, which I gather 
is the one that you're pulling for.  There's something ironically 
powerful about Dumbledore's refusal to share and confide in people 
being at least part of what brings him down: given his personality, 
it makes him pathetic in the classical sense of the word, not the 
modern loose usage.  (He's got at least one big honkin' howler of a 
mistake on his hands no matter which of three+ scenarios we choose, 
so I don't understand why it's so essential to keep him pure and 
unsullied in the Snape-trusting area.  Or is it a 'won't someone 
think of the children?' case?)  But it's eminently up in the air, in 
a way that such things as shipping really weren't.

-Nora, who wouldn't dream of pointing out JKR's ambiguous, playful, 
but not exactly hopeful comments about the issue







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 21:59:02 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:59:02 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl8cec+65mp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8cv6+ospq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142986

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
>
>> Sydney:
>> <snip>
>> We're all used to seing the 'reversal' in a revenge story, where  
>> Our Hero has been the underdog in a relationship, and then the    
>> tables turn, and the hero has power over the antagonist. 

> Betsy Hp:

<snip>

> So it's hard for me to see their relationship as so unequal as to 
> place Harry as the underdog awaiting a reversal.  

There's one area where Harry has definitely been the underdog: being 
right about things.  This is the card currently being played (and 
played hard) as to why Snape is actually good and Dumbledore should 
be trusted about him: since when has Harry actually been right about 
*anything*?

Hermione is right about things (being our source of exposition), 
Dumbledore is right, all of these characters have a further view than 
Harry, who is continually mistaken about motivations and the actual 
allegiances of characters.

Well, score one point for Harry in this book for suspecting Draco 
correctly; could it be that Harry scores another point as well?  IMO, 
it *would* be a strong reversal to have Harry's suspicions be 
correct.  It would also be an interesting symmetry within the series: 
book 1, Harry is wrong about Snape who is innocent; book 7, Harry is 
right about Snape who is not.

Right or wrong on this (50% chance straight up, decent odds...), 
knowledge is power and that balance has to shift towards Harry for 
him to get things done.

-Nora hunts for a nice cup of tea to end the daylight with









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 22:04:49 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:04:49 -0000
Subject: Standards of writing  ( some minor spoilers for Ulysses and LOTR)
In-Reply-To: <dl6atb+rcfe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8da1+95he@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142987

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > As an editor and a former English teacher, I have to 
> > disagree. There *are* objective criteria by which to 
> > judge good writing. In the case of fiction, they includ
> > a fully developed plot ...; clear, concise sentences ...;
> > precise, concrete diction ...; realistic, natural-sounding
> > dialogue...; and (most important) memorable and distinctive
> > characters. 

 
> Alla:
> 
> Carol, I had been thinking about this topic for a couple days
> because at first I was inclined to agree with you more than I
> was with Lupinlore ..., but now I am afraid I am back to my 
> agreement with Lupinlore, well, at least partial agreement. :-)
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> I guess I have to say that I DO think that there are quite 
> common signs of genuinely BAD writing and by BAD writing I
> mean, I don't know - some of the very crappy fan fiction, 
> .... When I, non-native speaker, ..., think that I could 
> write ... better than some fan fiction writers ...
> 
> BUT when we go into the world of published writing, I think 
> that the things get VERY subjective, very fast. ...
> 
> You listed several criteria of the good writing, but my 
> question to you would be who determines those criteria 
> and who determines whether certain writer's work fits those 
> criteria?
> 

bboyminn:

Writing can be judge in a number of ways. Writing can be technically
correct, but still tell a bad story, or writing can be technically
incorrect and still tell a whopping good tale. 

However, there is a foundation for good writing that, within the
limited and obscure bounds of the English language, is clearly defined
and precise. This technical aspect of good writing is clearly defined
in 'Stunk & White's - Elements of Style' and in 'The Chicago Manual of
Style' as well as other similar books.

I remember reading a fan fiction that told a good story, but the
writing technique was so flawed that reading became immensely tedious
and confusing. It was a struggle to read what I could see was a good
story. I wrote the author and told him his story would improve
immensely if he cleaned up the writing style. Unfortunately he was one
of these lazy authors who felt that this is the way the story came to
me, so this is the way it should be published. A very unrealistic veiw
of publishing if you ask me. 

So, there is a concrete, or as concrete as the English language can
be, standard for good writing. There is a further somewhat more
abstact standard by which writing can be measure, and Carol itemizes
several of those.

BUT, and that is a big BUT, there is no accounting for taste. There
are many New York Times Best Sellers that I couldn't plod through if
you paid me. Still, they were good enough to get published, they were
good enough to make it to the best seller list; someone somewhere must
have objectively judged them as good. But no matter how 'good' they
are, I personally could never find them appealing. 

So, good writing technique can be held to a objective standard.
Though, the English language contains so many acceptions to its rules
that authors can affectively break the rules and still come out right.
For example, a technically good writers never uses parenthetical
asides  (if you see what I mean). But that is a general rule, JKR does
just that and to very great effect. So, productive and effective
acceptions to the rules are allowed.

> Alla:
>
> You list "fully developed plot" as first criteria. Several
> months ago I attempted to read James Joyce " Ulysses" (...it
> was quite painful for me :-)) ... So, yeah, if you ask me what
> do I think about " Ulysses" ... My answer to you would be that
> I SO wasted my time reading it. ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Now I actually agree with you a lot as to JKR's writing. Here would 
> be a good time to thank Steve for his wonderful essay and to say 
> that I agree with the most of what he wrote.  I think it is very 
> good, because we can visualize the world and the settings, and 
> especially because I can " feel" the characters, it touches me on 
> very deep level.
>

bboyminn:

Steve humbly bows and is elated to know that someone is actually
reading his posts.

> Alla:
>
> At the same time, there are those who  think that her 
> characters are often sacrificed in favor of the plot 
> development. ... 

bboyminn:

I think that criticism has come about with the addition of the most
recent book, and to some extent it is a valid criticism. But we have
to consider that JKR has a wealth of characters, almost too many. In a
sense, she has done such a wonderful job of creating her world that
her world actually over extends her plot. While having a plethora of
characters, she truly is running out of plot. The story must end, and
she is force to /force/ the story toward that end; there's no way
around it. Things have to happen in order to reach the end, and that
means that achieving that end, or at least the prelude to that end,
dictates how much time and room there is for characters to develop.

Also keep in mind that JKR has /space/ limitations. Her publishers are
not going to allow her to write a 1200 page tome. She has to keep the
things that need to happen contained into the length of a common
reasonable sized novel. I think the key to this whole story (HBP) is
that Draco has reluctantly gone over to the dark side, and Snape must
kill Dumbledore. JKR starts with that seed and must weave a novel
around it. That's not an easy task. I remember in one chapter of my
fan fiction, I simply needed one character to make one statement that
represented a clue for another character, but how to weave that
clue/statement into my story. Well, it took me a chapter of 10,000
words just to get that character to make that one statement. I think
it was a good chapter, and the bulk of it was simply a chain of
circumstances that lead to a conversation. So, my point is that, like
it or not, sometimes the plot really must drive the characters. JKR
simply doesn't have time or space to wander off on tangental
characters, Draco must 'step in quicksand' and Snape must kill
Dumbledore and everything that happens must lead to that end. That is
the reality of this book. 

Still, think of the latest, and by some regarded as the poorest, book;
HBP. Then conpare the latest book to the standard 'best seller' fair
that is out there and tell me how it stacks up? No, it doesn't measure
up to the best of JKR's work, but I think it holds up nicely when
compared to other books by other authors. 

Again, relating back to what I said previously, whether a book is well
written is completely independant of whether you like it or not. I'm
speaking of professionally published book here, so the technical
process of writing has already been dealt with.


> ...edited...
> 
> Carol:
> <snip>
> > If I could do so without abandoning professionalism, I would
> > quote you some genuinely bad writing from a manuscript I'm 
> > currently editing--extremely wordy sentences, the same phrases 
> > over and over, pompous diction, unrealistic and unnatural 
> > dialogue, stereotyped characters, unbelievable situations
> > ... extended descriptions in purple prose. This is not merely
> >  my opinion of what constitutes bad writing. >

> Alla:
> 
> I guess I have to ask again. Whose opinion is it then? 
> Literary critics? Why their opinion should count as more 
> objective than mine for example? :-) 
> 
> I want to go back to " Ulysses" for example. I think it has 
> extremely wordy sentences, pompous diction, unrealistic  and  
> unnatural dialogue. Do you think it is bad writing? I am quite 
> serious here.
> ...edited... 
>
> JMO obviously,
> 
> Alla, ...

bboyminn:

I'm reminded of what a Supreme Court Judge once said about
pornography, (paraphrased) I can't define it, but I know it when I see
it. First of all, the measure of good writing is the tedium and
struggle that the author puts the reader through. I am simply not
going to wade through pages of 'bad writing' on the off change that
there might be a good story there. That exactly why I don't read
Shakespeare. I know the story is good, but I simply can't wade through
the tedious and difficult dialog. 

Which brings to to an important point and back to 'Ulysses'; what are
the odds that Shakespeare or 'Ulysses' could get published today? I
would say ZERO. Great as Skakespeare's his work might be, it is simply
out of touch with modern day writing and reading. 

So, without a doubt there really is a subjective element to good
writing, but before you can even get to that subjective part, you have
to wade through the very objective aspects of technical writing, and
of basic standard story construction, plot and character development.
Once you have overcome the objective technical aspects of it all, then
you must ask, is this technically correct story worth reading?

One last point, we know that several publishers rejected JKR's first
book before one agreed to publish it. Does that all mean that they
either objectively or subjectively thought it was bad writing? I don't
think so. I suspect that their rejection was purely a marketing
decision. They didn't ask whether the story was well written (at least
not in the end), they asked themselves whether there was a profitable
market for this book, and decided there wasn't. Not all writing is
accepted or rejected based on quality, some is simply accepted because
the publisher thinks the mindless consumer drones will eat it up;
purely a marketing decision.

I'm not sure I've actually added anything. I do believe that there are
indeed objective standards by which writing can be judged, but that
doesn't eliminate the fact that there is also indeed a subjective
element to it all. Again, I think people are taking an all-or-nothing
appraoch, black and white, when in reality the world is filled with
shades of grey.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 22:21:09 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:21:09 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl8ckp+krk2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8e8l+ruj6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142988

> >>Nora:
> <snip> 
> Otherwise we fall into an ersatz generalized structuralism, and I 
> don't need any more Joseph Campbell in my life. :)  (Nobody does.)

Betsy Hp:
I hate to speak for Sydney since she's been doing so well, but I 
think she's actually pointing to familiar structuralism within her 
argument.  JKR isn't *that* much of rule-breaker in her story 
structure.  Actually, I don't think she's a rule-breaker at all.  
She pulls from a couple of different genres, so that shakes things 
up a teeny tiny bit.  But honestly, if you throw out Campbell's rule 
book  (which is kinda silly, IMO, since he's sort of an expert in at 
least one of the genres JKR is relying so heavily upon) than you're 
bound to miss some really big honking clues as to the direction of 
the story, IMO.

> >>Nora:
> I suppose that's one default possible structural model, but I'm   
> far less more comfortable than I used to be that it's now 'bound' 
> to go that way.  Maybe if it had remained on anything close to the 
> same parameters that it was following, but those got blown apart   
> with a BANG (unless one is intent upon arguing for a line of       
> thought which retrospectively mitigates said BANG). 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The BANG of Snape killing Dumbledore is an important part of that 
particular structural model.  The person the protaganist distrusts 
*must* do something to cement that distrust right at the moment the 
protaganist will need them most.  That's what pulls the tension to a 
really nice near-breaking point so that the climax is that much more 
satisfying.  Before the Tower only Harry distrusted Snape, now no 
one does.  Which will make the moment where Harry has to make a 
choice (to trust or not to trust) that much more difficult and 
therefore compelling.

Betsy Hp







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 22:32:03 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:32:03 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl8cv6+ospq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8et3+ruuk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142989

> >> Sydney:
> > > <snip>
> > > We're all used to seing the 'reversal' in a revenge story,     
> > > where Our Hero has been the underdog in a relationship, and   
> > > then the tables turn, and the hero has power over the         
> > > antagonist. 
> > > <snip>
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > So it's hard for me to see their relationship as so unequal as   
> > to place Harry as the underdog awaiting a reversal.  
> > <snip>

> >>Nora: 
> There's one area where Harry has definitely been the underdog:     
> being right about things.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But not to Snape.  In fact, I'd say Snape and Harry are also pretty 
equal when it comes to wrong conclusions reached.  The rest of your 
post is about Harry *finally* being right to distrust Snape.  So 
does that mean you agree that the story structure leans more towards 
the Snape/Harry relationship being about trust rather than power?

Betsy Hp






From ornawn at 013.net  Sun Nov 13 20:58:17 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:58:17 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore
Message-ID: <dl89d9+aa0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142990

>Kemper now:
>The hand twitch could have been the curse of the DADA position. But 
>let's
>the twitch was the creation of a horcrux, what item would it be? I 
>would
>guess the sword.

>Could it be possible that the Sorting Hat is a horcrux?
>Penhaligon

Orna:
I somehow can't imagine the sword acting as a loyal assistance to 
Harry in CoS, if it was a horcrux. For the same reason I find it 
hard to believe that the sorting hat, functioning the way it 
functions, is one.   But I may be wrong; it would be a twist in the 
story, worthy of JKR.

>Kemper
It seems like one has to pass the room of requirement
>on the way to Dumbledore's office. 
 There's a nice tiara in the 
room >that Harry uses to mark the
>Half-Blood Prince's potions book. Again, a great place to hide 
>something
>without needing protections. To open the door to that particular 
room >of
>requirement one must want to hide something instead of finding 
>something.
>The room in itself is a natural, difficult protection.

Orna:
I like it. It would open naturally to Voldermort if he would like to 
hide something there. I still think that he would like some special 
object, but Kemper Voldermort could have brought the object, or 
otherwise known it to be there. I also like one horcrux to be hidden 
in Hogwarts, because emotionally-wise it would fit into Voldermort 
marking the school as important enough for him to place a horcrux 
there, and story-wise, it would be a good reason for Harry to 
revisit Hogwarts, even if he doesn't learn there. <g>

Orna










From rklarreich at aol.com  Sun Nov 13 20:49:57 2005
From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:49:57 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <dl6fpa+j7c1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl88tl+d6fp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142991

Roberta earlier:

>>Consider these two facts we know about Voldemort:
>> 
>>1.  He rewards those who help him (cf. Pettigrew's new hand);
> 
>colebiancardi: 
>
>yes - but perhaps the rewards that LV gives is material
>things, not people.  And Peter did do something that no one else has
>done for LV - he gave him his life back.  Also, a one-handed Peter is
>probably of no use for LV.

Roberta:

Perhaps the rewards are only material things, perhaps not.  Who 
knows?  I was speculating about possible motives for Voldemort to 
reward followers with what they want.  What Peter wanted in that 
moment was a hand.  It would have been pointless to give him 
something else.  If another follower wanted a lover, it would have 
been pointless to give him, say, a hand. :)

And a disaffected follower is also of no use to Voldemort.  You can 
kill him, but then you're one follower short.  Why waste them?  
Voldemort knows perfectly well that most of his followers are in it 
for themselves all the way.  (Crazed idol-worshipers like Bellatrix 
and Barty Junior seem not to be the norm.)

Roberta earlier:

>>2.  He manipulates and blackmails his followers using their love 
>>for others against them (cf. Draco in HBP).
> 
>colebiancardi:
>
>good point.  However, LV threatened to kill Draco's family if he 
>didn't do what LV ordered him to do.  This is different from Snape 
>asking for Lily's life to be spared....

Roberta:

My point was that the manipulation payoff would come later.  If you 
save someone your follower cares about now, you can threaten to kill 
that person later (as with Draco) if you need to ensure the 
follower's loyalty.

colebiancardi:

>What did Snape do that was so awesome that LV wishes to reward him?  

Roberta:

First, I thought I had made it clear in my original post that I 
wasn't talking about Snape and the prophecy.  I don't buy the 
scenario where LV spared Lily because Snape asked him to, or where 
Lily has anything to do with Snape's "remorse."  You asked why LV 
would *ever* spare someone's life to reward a follower, and I was 
trying to explain why I think he would under the right circumstances.

Second, in GoF Voldemort says that he rewards those who help him, not 
just those who return him to his body (even though that is the 
context).  If he only rewarded those who returned him to his body, 
that would be rather limiting for the DEs, wouldn't it? :)  As I said 
above, the DE organization is founded on self-interest.  There have 
to be rewards now and then.

colebiancardi:

>I just think that LV wanted a clean shot at Harry, and lied to Lily
>about sparing her life - I think if LV was successful at killing
>Harry, Voldemort would have then just killed Lily with no problem.  

Roberta:

I've said elsewhere that I disagree (it does seem that JKR has 
confirmed that LV would have spared Lily, but I'll keep to canon and 
just argue it as I see it).  Why bother lying and telling her to step 
aside just so he can kill her after Harry?  I mean, why not just kill 
her on sight and save time?  That would give him the clean shot you 
mention without the risk of an extra enemy bouncing around and 
interfering just when he was aiming that AK at Harry.

I don't agree with the theory that he wanted to torture her by making 
her watch the death of her son.  Voldemort didn't go to Godric's 
Hollow to have fun torturing and killing people.  He went to 
eliminate a threat, and that requires single-mindedness.  You go 
after the threat, and you get rid of anything in the way.  You don't 
waste precious time telling the kid's mother to get out of the way 
just because it's cool to watch her reaction to her child's death.

Roberta earlier:

>> As for Lily turning Snape to the good side (or fools' side, from 
>> Voldemort's point of view), I doubt that Voldemort would worry too 
>> much about that.  In the first place, there's his aforementioned 
>> new hold over Lily, and in the second, he's always half-expecting 
>> his followers to be untrustworthy anyway.
> 
> colebiancardi:  so the idea is that Lily would be under the Imperius
> Curse?  I think that Lily would have the "real strength of 
character"
> that MadEye states that one needs to fight against it.

Roberta:

Sorry, I mistyped above.  I meant to write "his aforementioned new 
hold over SNAPE."  Of course, "Snape" here is a stand-in for the 
hypothetical DE Voldemort is rewarding with the hypothetical spared 
victim for whom Lily is standing in.  I DO NOT believe this situation 
actually occurred with Snape and Lily.

And I agree that Lily probably had the strength of character to 
resist Imperius.  Actually, Harry probably inherited this quality 
from both parents.

Roberta









From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Nov 13 21:57:23 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:57:23 -0500
Subject: Why?
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAqTR1eJnlQ0WskAAOemOHigEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 142992

"a_svirn:

Which calls for interesting question: just why should Vernon and 
Petunia Dursley adhere to Albus Dumbledore's "instructions"? Apart 
from the fact that he can turn them into frogs if they don't?"


Perhaps because when you make a promise you should keep it, and if you are
unwilling to keep it you oughtn't to make it in the first place?

Petunia had choices; she made them.  She made promises; some of them she broke,
and those which she kept she kept in a niggardly and minimalistic way.  There
are consequences to choices and to broken promises.  So far they have been
relatively minor.

Respect is an earned quality; the Dursleys have done nothing to earn respect.
They are contemptible; why not treat them with contempt?

Bruce





From va32h at comcast.net  Sun Nov 13 16:37:15 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:37:15 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
In-Reply-To: <001d01c5e867$c4376f50$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dl7q3r+dora@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142993

Sherry:
> 
> Really?  What would you call someone who ordered Wormtail to 
murder the
> innocent Cedric the moment he and Harry arrived in the graveyard 
at the end
> of GOF?  That seemed quite bloodthirsty and psychopathic to me.  
and come
> on, even the fact that he tried to murder baby Harry doesn't show 
him as
> merely a power hungry person.  just my opinion, naturally.


va32h here:

Cedric's killing was merely pragmatic. Voldemort didn't expect 
anyone to arrive with Harry, and certainly didn't need to deal with 
an extra person at that point. So Cedric was simply dispatched. 

That shows how cold and vile Voldemort is - that he would kill 
someone simply for being inconvenient to him - but I don't see 
Voldemort as relishing the murder, or enjoying it, the way a 
bloodthirsty psychopath would.

Attempting to murder baby Harry shows Voldemort to be not so much a 
psychopath, as a coward. Voldemort fears the "one" named in the 
prophecy, and would rather dispatch him as a defenseless tot.

But again, it's a pragmatic killing. Voldemort isn't after Harry 
because he likes killing babies; he is after him because he 
(Voldemort) believes Harry to be a future threat. 

Just my opinion, too. 

va32h 









From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Sun Nov 13 23:34:40 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:34:40 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry heroic?
Message-ID: <20051113233440.94173.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142994

Sherry Gomes wrote:

> As for OOTP, he was heroic standing up to Umbridge. 
and remember, he stood
> up to her before anyone else did.  

While I more or less agree with the general direction
of your post, I must disagree with this point.

First of all, he wasn't the first, Hermione was there
with the first act of defiance. And second - what
Harry did was not heroic. It was stupid, stupid,
stupid. Hermione thought though. All his Gryffindor
friends thought so. McGonagall thought so.
Hermione was standing up to Umbridge in a clever way,
lesson after lesson. And she thought up the two things
that hurt Umbridge the most - the interview and the
DA. There was nothing brave about Harry letting his
temper to run loose, the brave thing would be to reign
it in, and hurt her where it matters.

Irene


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 13 23:59:07 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:59:07 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl88qg+c37f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8k0b+coq2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142995

colebiancardi:
>The terms outlined in the letter
> was the request that the Dursley's take Harry in and the wish that
> Harry be raised as the Dursley's own son.  DD also explained that 
if
> they agreed to take Harry in(and there may be more, we don't know),
> Petunia sealed the agreement and Harry must be allowed to stay over
> for at least one night in the Dursley's home until he is 17.  

a_svirn:
Terms are not the same thing as request or wish. He may have asked 
but there is no reason why the Dursleys should comply with the 
request and grunt the wish. It's not like they owe him anything. As 
for allowing the houseroom, she has kept her end of the bargain. 

colebiancardi:
> It is like a job - if you only do what is required to skate on by, 
you
> will not get a raise - matter of fact, you may be out of a job 
soon.

a_svirn:
I think you hit it on the nail, colebiancardi. The thing is the 
Dursleys would be more than happy to be out of this particular job. 







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 13 23:15:50 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:15:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
References: <dl88qg+c37f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013601c5e8a8$34de49a0$1260400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 142996

colebiancardi:
 The terms outlined in the letter
was the request that the Dursley's take Harry in and the wish that
Harry be raised as the Dursley's own son.

Magpie:

Actually, the Dursleys have always been expected to raise Harry as James and 
Lily's son, imo, since their importance is all about being related to Lily. 
I mention this because we've repeatedly seen Wizards take authority from 
Muggles, so it's not like Petunia is ever honestly going to be given the 
kind of parental rights that Wizards get.  Petunia is an ingredient in a 
spell, and that's what she's really needed to be.

colebiancardi:
DD also explained that if
they agreed to take Harry in(and there may be more, we don't know),
Petunia sealed the agreement and Harry must be allowed to stay over
for at least one night in the Dursley's home until he is 17.

Magpie:

Maybe Im wrong, but as I understood it when Petunia took Harry in the thing 
that she sealed was Dumbledore's protection spell.  As long as Harry was 
living in her house the spell worked.  So the pact being sealed was from 
Dumbledore to Harry through Petunia.  It was not a pact between Dumbledore 
and Petunia.  I don't think she herself was necessarily agreeing to anything 
except giving her baby nephew room in her house, knowing this would also 
provide him with protection from LV. The baby was just left the doorstep 
with a note, no?  So it's not like she and Dumbledore had any sort of 
discussion about exactly what she was agreeing to beyond taking an abandoned 
nephew into her house.

When DD reminded her of this it may not have been that he was reminding her 
of some contract she entered into but simply reminding her that if Harry did 
not have a place in her house, he would not be protected.  Did she want her 
sister's child to die?  If not, he stayed.

colebiancardi:
I don't think Petunia was forced into doing this.  I never stated
that.  What I stated is that once she agreed to DD's terms in the
letter - and see above for my paragraph of the terms, plus the post
that lists the canon - she had to abid to it, otherwise, there might
be ramifications by breaking the pact.  Perhaps something out of DD's
control - perhaps LV could target the Dursley's if the pact, once
made, was broken.

Magpie:
It seems to me that the Dursleys are only under any threat from LV because 
of Harry.  Unless he thought he could hurt Harry by doing so, like he did 
with Sirius, I can't see why LV would go after them rather than go after a 
Weasley.  There have been a lot of references lately to the Dursleys knowing 
all about the war, but they honestly don't seem to know much.

colebiancardi:

It is like a job - if you only do what is required to skate on by, you
will not get a raise - matter of fact, you may be out of a job soon.
However, if you go above & beyond what is required of you, you get a
raise, you get the promotion.

Magpie:

But there's no indication the Dursleys are up for a raise or termination. 
They don't want anything to do with Dumbledore or wizards.

colebiancardi:
They didn't behave as decent human beings and
he let them know it.  In America, people like the Dursley's get thrown
in jail for the indifference and mistreatment of children.  A few
glasses of mead knocking on the Dursley's heads, pales in comparsion
what RL would have done to them.

Magpie:

Of course, those same Muggle authorities would probably not think very 
highly of Dumbledore's actions either.  But yes, the Dursleys treatment of 
Harry is horrible and in no way deserved by him, and the RW authorities 
probably would not think hitting them in the head with glasses of mead was 
an appropriate response to it.

colebiancardi:
At DD gave them a choice there too -
they didn't have to drink the mead, just acknowledge the drinks and
hold them in their hands.

Magpie:

The Dursleys don't know how enchanted glasses work.  The kind of glasses 
they are used to don't require you to refuse them. Dumbledore had a choice 
to spell them away or to the table when the Dursleys didn't take them. 
Would he have allowed the glasses to smack the Drs. Granger on the head 
until they asked him to stop them?  Or apologize and do something about them 
himself?

Bruce:

Respect is an earned quality; the Dursleys have done nothing to earn 
respect.
They are contemptible; why not treat them with contempt?

Magpie:

Certain forms of respect are earned, true, and if Dumbledore wishes to treat 
the Dursleys with respect that's his business.  I think the point here, 
though, is that he *is* treating them with contempt.  Some of the 
interpretations of this chapter seem to want it both ways, so that 
Dumbledore can both treat them with contempt and be polite and magnanimous 
at the same time.

-m










From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 00:17:42 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:17:42 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <013601c5e8a8$34de49a0$1260400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dl8l36+4476@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142997

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at a...> wrote:

*ironing my hands--I know I'm one over here...*

> Magpie:
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understood it when Petunia took Harry in 
> the thing that she sealed was Dumbledore's protection spell.  As 
> long as Harry was living in her house the spell worked.  So the 
> pact being sealed was from Dumbledore to Harry through Petunia.  It 
> was not a pact between Dumbledore and Petunia.

Actually, Dumbledore strikes me as being the guarantor in this whole 
setup.  Dumbledore is sealing a charm, but Petunia's co-operation and 
free agreement in such (she may have done it grudgingly, but she did 
do it of her own free will) is what seals the charm--which ties baby 
Harry to her, not to Dumbledore.  He has to stay at the Dursley's, 
not where Dumbledore is.  [This may have something to do with 
Dumbledore's non-interference up to a certain point, but I'm 
guessing.]

Dumbledore is then the third party in the entire thing.  Petunia 
agreed to the Deal by accepting Baby Harry into her household--
otherwise the magic wouldn't have worked.  (It's so nice that magic 
provides these explicit delineations of acceptance and all of those 
sorts of things.  You can't fool magic.)  Since Petunia agreed to the 
Deal for which Dumbledore is the guarantor, he is well within his 
legal and moral rights in coming to discuss the actions of the 
parties.

> I don't think she herself was necessarily agreeing to anything 
> except giving her baby nephew room in her house, knowing this would 
> also provide him with protection from LV. The baby was just left 
> the doorstep with a note, no?  So it's not like she and Dumbledore 
> had any sort of discussion about exactly what she was agreeing to 
> beyond taking an abandoned nephew into her house.

It's still open precisely what was in the letter; Petunia certainly 
seems to know more about the wizarding side of things then she lets 
on.  I wouldn't rule out that Petunia knew very well what the dangers 
had been and what they were, when she took her free will action.

> When DD reminded her of this it may not have been that he was 
> reminding her of some contract she entered into but simply 
> reminding her that if Harry did not have a place in her house, he 
> would not be protected.  Did she want her sister's child to die?  
> If not, he stayed.

Acceptance of the child, IMO, is a more-than-simply-implicit 
contract, which includes the whole 'and this keeps the child alive, 
as well'.

> Magpie:
> It seems to me that the Dursleys are only under any threat from LV 
> because of Harry.  Unless he thought he could hurt Harry by doing 
> so, like he did with Sirius, I can't see why LV would go after them 
> rather than go after a Weasley.  There have been a lot of 
> references lately to the Dursleys knowing all about the war, but 
> they honestly don't seem to know much.

Idle speculation here; JKR shot down our wondering about James' 
parents dying from the war (cause of death: old age and wizarding 
disease), but she's never (IMO) done so for the Evans parents.  Given 
Voldie's parental and relative preoccupation, and Lily as someone who 
had denied him three times, Petunia may well have had more of a brush 
with danger in the past.  No canon for any of it, of course, but one 
shouldn't underestimate the pettiness of a major villain.

The scenes with Petunia in both OotP and HBP strike me as someone who 
knows full well what she'd agreed to, and is ashamed and angry about 
being called to account, finally, for her sub-standard performance as 
a human being.

-Nora goes off to slam her hands in the oven door as a good example






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 14 00:46:09 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:46:09 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl80fc+7iqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8moh+2i9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 142998


> a_svirn:
> Well, it's not true either. Petunia did not accept the letter from a 
> presumptuous old man. She accepted her little orphaned nephew. 

Valky:
Well in that case "Remember my last" must have meant nothing to her.
Funny how Harry still lives there. 




> 
> > Valky:
> If they really did not want to be involved
> > the first step would be to not take Harry, as I have said. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Rowling seems to give us an entirely different view of the matter. 
> Remember in PS:
> 
>  "But what should we do, Vernon? Should we write back? Tell them we 
> don't want --" 
>  Harry could see Uncle Vernon's shiny black shoes pacing up and down 
> the kitchen. 
>  "No," he said finally. "No, we'll ignore it. If they don't get an 
> answer... Yes, that's best... we won't do anything....
> "But --" 
>  "I'm not having one in the house, Petunia! Didn't we swear when we 
> took him in we'd stamp out that dangerous nonsense?"
> 
> Looks like they took in their nephew but did not agree to have a 
> wizard around. 

Valky:
But as I have said twice, that is their own conflict of interests,
they confuse themselves because Harry *is* a wizard. By taking in a
Wizard boy with a view to interfering in his wizardness they are
taking a hand in Wizard affairs because it suits them. 

In simple terms three facts:

Harry *IS* a Wizard 
His affairs are Wizard Affairs 
The Dursleys took him in and meddled in his affairs.

Hence The Dursleys took wizard affairs into their home and meddled
with them to suit their purposes. It all very simply comes down to
their own stubborn stupidity and hypocrisy doesn't it.

Asa much as they say they want nothing to do with it, the fact remains
they have taken plenty upon themselves.




> a_svirn:
> Very well, lets do it blow-by-blow. "It could be said that from 
> Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was grudgingly willing to claim 
> her acquaintance with the Wizard world"  No it couldn't. 


Valky:
:) Why not? Dumbledore says exactly this in OOtP.
Paraphrase - she may have taken you grudgingly, but she took you and
sealed the pact.



a_svirn:
> "She did so 
> and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger" No, she did not and yes, he 
> is. 

Valky:
But they made a pact, I don't think two people can be strangers after
that.



a_svirn:
> "They do have something to do with the Wizard world, and it's 
> not clear exactly why they do so when they don't want to". The only 
> thing they have in common with wizards is Harry and it's not by 
> their choice they share him with them. 


Valky:
No I'm afraid that makes an assumption that contradicts canon and most
definitely is *not* otherwise given. 
firstly - canon has it that Dumbledore leaves people to their own choices.
and secondly - we are not told that Petunia had no choice, you are
assuming that and I can't buy it because of first point - it
contradicts canon.

In all, I must say that it is not clear why Petunia: took Harry -
sealed the pact - joined the Wizard World, when she seems to be saying
she never wanted to, it should be made clear, I think, by the end of
the series. If threats and choicelessness clear it up for you in the
interim, well be it, but it doesn't clear it up for me.


 
> > Valky:
> > In an attempt to wrap
> > the whole thing up I'll just say that I meant the howler was
> > frightening, but I hold short of translating that into an overt 
> threat.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Very well, it was a covert threat. Does it make it any better?
>

Valky:
No not really because I simply am not inclined to lean to the
assumption that Dumbledore was any kind of threat to the Dursleys.
There is just waaay too much contradiction to that option. 

OTOH something threatening or foreboding in the general sense I would
buy, maybe. As far as I can see anything said about the inference of
the letter other than that it was of grave significance regarding some
secret shared between Petunia and Dumbledore is purely speculative. I
take your speculation as being meritous in its own way, but I don't
take it as canon.











From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 14 00:57:59 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:57:59 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
References: <dl8l36+4476@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016901c5e8b6$75ad9810$1260400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 142999

Nora:

> Actually, Dumbledore strikes me as being the guarantor in this whole
> setup.  Dumbledore is sealing a charm, but Petunia's co-operation and
> free agreement in such (she may have done it grudgingly, but she did
> do it of her own free will) is what seals the charm--which ties baby
> Harry to her, not to Dumbledore.  He has to stay at the Dursley's,
> not where Dumbledore is.  [This may have something to do with
> Dumbledore's non-interference up to a certain point, but I'm
> guessing.]

Magpie:

Yes, I definitely think the bone such as it is is between Harry and Petunia, 
since it's the two of them together (or their blood together) that creates 
the charm.  Petunia has allowed herself to be part of a magical thing.  I 
think Petunia's whole relationship with Harry after OotP speaks to someone 
who is a bundle of conflicted feelings: she knows she's treated him badly, 
she hates the wizarding world for putting her in that position, I think she 
both loves her sister and hates her sister as well.

The one good thing Petunia did is agree to put herself in danger and give 
her nephew a home if that reading of the note is correct, which I think it 
is.  This is pretty much obscured by the many bad things she's done, 
treating Harry badly.

But still, she has kept the spell going.  She once almost threw Harry out 
when Dementors came for her son along with Harry, and Dumbledore sent her an 
angry letter saying to remember his last letter, appealing to her fear of 
Dumbledore and the WW or to what originally prompted her to take Harry in.

So in terms of the contract, except for the one time when Petunia almost 
threw Harry out because of the Demtors, she's kept the spell going.  Her 
treatment of Harry is separate from that, something Dumbledore had hoped she 
would handle a certain way.  She didn't, and he didn't like the way she 
handled it and is telling her so (though actually he really didn't want her 
to treat him as her own son, because he thinks the way she treated her own 
is worse--at least Harry's not a pampered prince)..  She doesn't seem to be 
thinking of breaking it now, either.  In fact, I guess Dumbledore is asking 
to extend the contract by asking her to let Harry come back next summer.

MClifford:

Asa much as they say they want nothing to do with it, the fact remains
they have taken plenty upon themselves

Magpie:

It seems a bit odd to trap them this way.  Leaving aside that they're 
terrible people, Harry is their nephew.  Why should they relate to him as a 
Wizard and not family?  Couldn't Petunia be agreeing to protect her nephew 
as her nephew instead of as a Wizard?  Are the parents of Muggleborns 
meddling in the affairs of Wizards by allowing their kids to go to Hogwarts? 
Petunia seems to have been stuck with Wizards against her will since her 
sister turned out to be a Witch.  It makes it sound like they sought wizards 
out and have tried to get involved with them instead of having Wizards come 
to them.

-m 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 01:37:47 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:37:47 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl8moh+2i9n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8ppb+vtua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143000

 
> Valky:
> 
> In simple terms three facts:
> 
> Harry *IS* a Wizard 
> His affairs are Wizard Affairs 
> The Dursleys took him in and meddled in his affairs.
> 
> Hence The Dursleys took wizard affairs into their home and meddled
> with them to suit their purposes. It all very simply comes down to
> their own stubborn stupidity and hypocrisy doesn't it.

a_svirn:
The Dursleys are muggles. 
They don't want to have anything to do with magic.
Dumbledore dumped Harry at their doorstep, thus meddling with their 
life.

They took Harry and by doing so saved his skin. If anything 
Dumbledore should be damn well grateful for that. 








From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 02:09:38 2005
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why?
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAqTR1eJnlQ0WskAAOemOHigEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <20051114020938.18191.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143001



--- Bruce Alan Wilson <bawilson at citynet.net> wrote:

> Respect is an earned quality; the Dursleys have done
> nothing to earn respect.
> They are contemptible; why not treat them with
> contempt?
> 
> Bruce

Well I was raised with the belief that just because
that someone is acting like an ingrate and do little
to earn one's respect that doesn't mean you have to go
out of you way to lower yourself to their level. just
use a 'take it or leave it' attatude. Therefore just
because the Dursleys have done little to earn anyone's
respect in terms of the treatment of Harry vs. Dudley
dosen't neccessarily the rest of society turning on
'em


laurie



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From ornawn at 013.net  Sun Nov 13 20:39:46 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:39:46 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
Message-ID: <dl88ai+nr15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143002

Jen:
> I don't
> see how Snape can get away unscathed unless Dumbledore purposely put
> him into the DADA job and ordered him to take the UV. And then we
> would have a new set of concerns!

Orna:

I just had some elaboration of your idea. Perhaps DD really ordered 
Snape to make the UV, so Bellatrix and Draco as well would trust 
him. The plan being, that Snape would be able in this position to 
influence Draco somehow to give the plan up, and go to DD. Snape 
after all, was Draco's favorite until now. In this way, Snape would 
survive the UV, because IMO he was only bound to the plan, as long 
as Draco was set on it. (My personal understanding of UV being a 
bind between two persons, and not the mission itself). As it 
happened, Bellatrix didn't trust Snape and taught Draco occlumency, 
Draco didn't trust Snape, because he thought he might steal his 
glory, which means for Draco the UV just deepened his mistrust 
towards Snape. If it's like this, Snape's conversation with DD might 
have been his telling him that he doesn't succeed, and DD saying 
that in this case, he will have to kill DD, etc. 

I'm not saying it frees Snape from the moral responsibility of 
killing DD, just putting up a scenario. Snape could be courageous 
enough to take the risk of the UV (I think that's why he simply 
can't stand being accused of being a coward), and DD has done 
mistakes like this ? trusting Snape's mentoring abilities too much 
(see Harry and occlumency), not taking into account teenager's need 
to prove themselves and alone (see Harry running to the MOM in 
OotP).  

Orna









From lealess at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 03:04:53 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:04:53 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <013601c5e8a8$34de49a0$1260400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dl8usl+2p2r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143003

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:
>
> arrgg...you are making me chew up my posts! Dumbledore HAS mentioned
> them, and there are plenty of references in the last 2 books:
> 
> p. 55 Am Ed Hardcover HBP:
> Harry, whom Lord Voldemort has already attempted to kill on a number
> of occasions, is in even greater danger now than the day when I left
> him upon your doorstep 15 years ago, with a letter explaining about
> his parent's murder and expressing the hope that you would care for
> him as though he were your own."
> 
> DD later states(same page) "You did not do as I asked.  You have 
> never treated Harry as a son.  He has known nothing but neglect and 
> often cruelty at your hands.  The best that can be said is that he 
> has at least escaped the appalling damage you have inflicted upon 
> the unfortunate boy sitting between you"
> 
> more...
> "However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however
> unbadly treated, you have at least, grudgingly allowed him
> houseroom."
> 

Well, I am chewing up my third post of my day on this, with a couple
of observations:  Does "expressing a hope" constitute a binding term?
Does "doing as I asked" mean that the other party has explicitly
accepted those wishes?  If I get into a contract, I *hope* the
contractor will do a bang-up job that will last forever, and I may ask
out of my powerful position as know-all customer, "I should feel it
meets all industry standards" -- but if industry standards are not in
the agreement and the contractor strictly adheres to the other terms,
I have no basis for expecting more.

Second, if Dumbledore says they should have treated Harry as a son,
and in basically the next breath says that they have damaged their
son... there's just an inconsistency.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
>
> Dumbledore is then the third party in the entire thing.  Petunia 
> agreed to the Deal by accepting Baby Harry into her household--
> otherwise the magic wouldn't have worked.  (It's so nice that magic 
> provides these explicit delineations of acceptance and all of those 
> sorts of things.  You can't fool magic.)  Since Petunia agreed to 
> the Deal for which Dumbledore is the guarantor, he is well within 
> his legal and moral rights in coming to discuss the actions of the 
> parties.
> <SNIP>

I don't know much about guarantees, and I am probably not
understanding this.  Are you saying that Harry was offering...
something... and Petunia was offering room in her house, and
Dumbledore, as a guarantor, steps in and performs the contract if
Harry defaults?  Dumbledore was brokering the deal on behalf of Harry
(probably without legal authority, and Harry didn't have the capacity
to enter into an agreement himself), so wasn't Harry the party whose
performance he was guaranteeing?  If Petunia failed to fulfill her
part of the bargain, then she would lose her claim to... what, Harry's
blood protection?   It's all very confusing to me, and I may have it
mixed up.

It seems the Dursleys assumed a great deal of risk on behalf of Harry.
In a contract, they should have received something in return.  If
Dumbledore was a guarantor, he was supposed to make sure they received
whatever they were promised upon fulfillment of the contract.  When
Petunia seemed ready to default, he sent a Howler.  And if Harry
expressed a wish to move in with someone else, Dumbledore would have
delivered a stern lecture on his obligations to the Dursleys, or else
Dumbledore would have had to make good the contract himself.

I am not sure contractual analogies work in this situation.  It seems
more of a blood, morality, family obligation kind of thing, and given
the Dursleys, a hope and a prayer.  Which is why I agree that, quoting
Magpie:
> > When DD reminded her of this it may not have been that he was 
> > reminding her of some contract she entered into but simply 
> > reminding her that if Harry did not have a place in her house, he 
> > would not be protected.  Did she want her sister's child to die?  
> > If not, he stayed.
>
> colebiancardi: 
> Acceptance of the child, IMO, is a more-than-simply-implicit 
> contract, which includes the whole 'and this keeps the child alive, 
> as well'.
> <SNIP>

We may get the details of the whole explicit contract at some point,
another thing to add to the checklist for book 7!  I agree there is
more to Petunia than meets the eye.  I am wondering what the Dursleys
got out of taking Harry, except the knowledge they were doing the
right thing, at least initially.

On the other hand, maybe Petunia loved her sister and had a moment of
crazy compassion, then realized the danger she put her family into. 
Maybe she resented that Harry represented that danger.  Maybe she was
hoping against hope that Harry would be a Squib, not a wizard, or that
the family could guarantee by their behavior that Harry would never be
interested in magic, and thus endanger them all.  Note: I am *not*
saying that fear and loathing of the wizarding world excuse their
reprehensible behavior towards a child; I am just trying to see if
that behavior is understandable within any framework.

lealess






From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 14 03:32:14 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:32:14 EST
Subject: Snape, honorable? (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
Message-ID: <22e.12e3ffe.30a95f3e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143004

 
Antosha:
<SNIP>
> I don't think Snape is a nice man or  even a particularly good 
person. But I can see at least 
> the  possibility that he did what he did for honorable--or, at least-
-justifyable  reasons.
>


Alla:

YES, justifiable reasons I can see as  wrote earlier - it does not sit 
well with me, but I can see it - as in Snape  honestly thinking that 
that would be  the lesser of two evils,  especially if Dumbledore is 
dying at the moment, but honorable reasons?  Sorry, do not see it at 
all.






Julie:
I think under the circumstances you note--lesser of two evils,  especially
if DD is dying--it could be both justifiable and the honorable thing to  do.
One definition of honorable is something done for the benefit of  others
rather than the benefit of oneself, i.e., self-sacrifice. 
 
Ah, you say, but Snape saved HIMSELF! How is that self-sacrifice? 
Snape did something he didn't want to do (if the conversation Hagrid
overheard referred to this possible eventuality), something that may
have seriously damaged his soul, something that cost him a great
deal personally in the loss of the one man who trusted him and  was
perhaps his only true friend, his teaching position, his freedom, his
good name (so far as it went), and probably his future--and that's
not including that he has to return to Voldemort and act as a DE
at great risk to his life, which will likely be sacrificed in the  end.

Snape, how could you be so selfish! ;-)  If this is  how it went
down, and Snape killed/released Dumbledore (who would most
likely have died in any scenario) to ensure the survival of Harry
and Draco, among others (including himself), then I think it was
both courageous and honorable (and courage is an intergral
part of honor). 
 
Some likely disagree, but one reason I believe this is because
I've yet to see *any* evidence that Snape values his life in the 
sense that he'll do anything to stay alive (as Voldemort or Peter
will do). I suspect Snape would have been quite willing to die 
rather than kill Dumbledore, if Dumbledore would have agreed.
After all, it was Dumbledore himself who said there are fates 
worse than death. Voldemort may not understand that fact, but
I'm betting Snape does. And thanks to taking the honorable path
Dumbledore encouraged--sacrificing his own desires for that 
which will achieve the most good--Snape is living that fate.
 
Snape's action also touches on another Dumbledore theme,
which is doing what's right over what's easy. Snape could 
more easily have chosen to fight and die, even if dying took 
Harry, Draco, Dumbledore and eventually much of the WW 
with him. He could have been comforted by the posthumous
Order of Merlin, and numerous statues erected in his honor.
He would have finally acheived the respect and recognition
he felt he deserved. Yet he gave that up and killed Dumbledore,
for what? Simply to live, as a marked man, a hated man, a
presumed traitor and coward? That might be good enough for
Peter, but I don't think it is for Snape.  
 
This is also a reason I can't see OFH!Snape at all. His best 
interest is served by dying a hero, not by living as a pariah.
(Again I'm assuming with no contrary evidence that Snape  
has no fear of death, nor desire to remain alive at any cost).
If he's ESE it could make some sense if he wants the power 
Voldemort's rule supposedly promises (and if he's stupid 
enough to think Voldemort will give it to him). If he's DDM
it makes sense that he made the sacrifice for Dumbledore,
and as part of his continuing atonement for past crimes (and
for his serious miscalculation in taking the UV at all). But 
OFH, no sense. (And I do like GreyDDM!Snape, though I
see him not as conflicted by his loyalties--which are squarely
with DD--but by his own destructive tendencies, which prod
him to act vengefully. 
 
Julie 
--who strayed a bit from the original  topic


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 14 03:37:15 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:37:15 EST
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
Message-ID: <2b.7edbd7e9.30a9606b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143005

 


>  Valky:
> In an attempt to wrap
> the whole thing up I'll just say  that I meant the howler was
> frightening, but I hold short of  translating that into an overt 
threat.

a_svirn:
Very well, it  was a covert threat. Does it make it any  better?





Julie:
I don't see any proof that the howler is conveying a threat, covert
or overt, not *from* Dumbledore. I think it's more of an unpleasant 
reminder of the facts. I.e., the Dursleys are living under Wizard 
protection, be that Lily's original protection or Dumbledore's  added
charm. If they throw Harry out, then they become accessible to 
Voldemort. Voldemort knows who they are and where they live,
and there's nothing to stop him from paying a little visit. And
I'm thinking he'll dispose of any niceties Dumbledore employed,
sardonically so or not!
 
I am assuming that Petunia agreed to take Harry in mostly 
for the protection it conferred on her family. Petunia, being Lily's 
sister and Harry's aunt, would certainly be a likely target of the
DEs, just like Neville's parents. This situation wasn't Dumbledore's
doing, though he offered protection to the Dursleys for taking Harry. 
This also explains much of Petunia's (and via her attitude,  Vernon's)
dislike and fear of the WW. And her knowledge of certain Dark parts
of the WW, like Dementors. 
 
Truth be told, if I were Petunia I'd be happy if the WW never  darkened
my door again! I might even avoid telling my nephew *anything* about
the world that got his parents murdered, in hopes that he would never
know of its existence (a reasonable assumption or not). After all,  what
good could come of it, and what evil have I already seen from it?
 
So I don't blame the Dursleys for despising the WW, though of  course
that doesn't excuse their treatment of Harry in any way. 
 
Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 01:03:52 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:03:52 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl8e8l+ruj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8npo+s640@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143006

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> The BANG of Snape killing Dumbledore is an important part of that 
> particular structural model.  The person the protaganist distrusts 
> *must* do something to cement that distrust right at the moment the 
> protaganist will need them most.  That's what pulls the tension to 
a 
> really nice near-breaking point so that the climax is that much 
more 
> satisfying.  Before the Tower only Harry distrusted Snape, now no 
> one does.  Which will make the moment where Harry has to make a 
> choice (to trust or not to trust) that much more difficult and 
> therefore compelling.
> 
>



Or that much more cheesy and unbelievable, which describes most of 
DDM!Snape.  Actually, I agree with Nora that nobody needs more Joseph 
Campbell.  The patterns he identifies are no longer transparent, and 
by becoming predictable and expected (indeed driven into the ground) 
they have lost most of their power and are merely annoying.

As I've said before, Snape will need to be punished regardless of 
whose side he's on, unless JKR is a very poor writer indeed.  But let 
us move beyond both trust and power.  Perhaps the chief theme is 
adulthood?

What makes an adult?  Is it controlling your emotions?  I certainly 
don't think so, but perhaps JKR does.  If so, maybe this is a strong 
theme -- controlling your emotions, along with a willingness to 
accept the consequences of your actions and not search for emotional 
justifications.

Now, if so, both characters could be set up to undergo transformative 
arcs.  In a coming of age story, this is inevitable for the child 
character.  But what about the so-called adult?  If controlling your 
emotions is a qualification for adulthood, then Snape most certainly 
does not qualify.  He has ample room to grow in this area.  As he 
does in accepting and undergoing punishment for his actions.


Lupinlore









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 01:47:39 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:47:39 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl7vrf+fo6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8qbr+ja5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143007

Sydney  wrote:
> 
> LOL!  Wow, you really hate this character!  


Lupinlore:
Well, he's a child abuser.  What's not to hate?


Sydney wrote: 
> I guess mostly what I'm saying is, Harry being mistaken about 
> Snape's character and particularily about the essential nature of 
> what happened on the tower, has, in my professional opinion, in 
> terms of classical story structure, been set up pretty cleary.


Lupinlore:
Depends on what JKR is trying to say.  Is it about trust?  Is it 
about power?  Is it about emotions?  Is it about adulthood?  I 
suspect it's actually about quite a few of these things all together, 
in that it's "about" something very clear at all (an I'm not sure it 
is).

As for classical story structure, so much of that has been driven 
into the ground a la Joseph Campbell that it is not only no longer 
interesting and effective, it is positively annoying and off-
putting.  Which, I will allow, is one problem with JKR's writing in 
the last couple of books.


 
Sydney:
 And 
> the end of the books will feature Harry realizing this and 
resolving 
> into a positive relationship with Snape (maybe Snape will die one 
> paragraph later, but the catharsis will happen).  I'm not saying 
> it's necessarily what every reader will find the most morally 
> satisfying; it's clear that will absolutely turn your stomach!  But 
> brace yourself, because it's going to happen.  It's like 
> Ron/Hermionie.  Whatever you might think of how they're suited, or 
> however much you think Harry would be a better match, in terms of 
> the structure Ron and Hermionie were what was being set up.  
> 
>


Lupinlore:
Well, it's clear that this is what you WANT to have been set up for 
some reason.  If that's what floats your boat <shrug>.  All of this 
is unavoidably subjective.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if JKR pulls another "HBP" 
maneuver - which is to say that she tries a scattershot approach to 
satisfy as many people as possible (her protestations to the contrary 
not withstanding).  That is she gives us a storyline that emphasizes 
a DDM!Snape of some sort who undergoes some kind of karmic 
retribution for his treatment of Harry with elements of forgiveness 
and empowerment for Harry thrown in along with an important role for 
Snape in the defeat of Voldemort.  

To tell the truth, I think this is one of the reasons I think Grey!
Snape is very likely.  I don't think it would be the best way to 
resolve the storyline, but I think it will make a very attractive 
option for JKR.  In this way she gives something to the widest 
possible swathe of her readership, as well as spreading the annoyance 
and disappointment pretty evenly across the spectrum.  I know, I 
know, JKR is writing for herself, etc.  But parts of HBP showed 
unmistakeable signs of being written, in part, to please and placate 
large segments of the fandom, and no intelligent author (and I've 
never thought JKR is stupid) completely neglects their audience in 
their planning. Some form of revelation about Snape, followed by 
a "karmic moment" (or perhaps this would happen in the opposite 
order), then Snape's death, would be unsurprising.

Besides, as you say, it would be a very time-tested and "classical" 
way of handling things.  Everybody's pigeons come home to roost,  
mysteries are dissapated, tension is relieved,  justice is at least 
roughly served, morals of the story are made clear, the demands of 
karma are satisfied, and the wheel of the story comes to rest at a 
stable point.


Lupinlore








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 03:16:41 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:16:41 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl8et3+ruuk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl8vip+gjfu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143008


> Betsy Hp:
> But not to Snape.  In fact, I'd say Snape and Harry are also pretty 
> equal when it comes to wrong conclusions reached.  The rest of your 
> post is about Harry *finally* being right to distrust Snape.  So 
> does that mean you agree that the story structure leans more 
towards 
> the Snape/Harry relationship being about trust rather than power?
> 
>



Oh my, Betsy! :)  May we take it that you are admitting that Snape 
has been absolutely in the wrong where Harry is concerned and that 
you admit he must confess so, however humiliating that will be for 
him, and be punished for his abuse in order for his character arc to 
be complete?  Congratulations on achieving enlightenment! <big grin>

Actually, the theme of wrong conclusions seems to be a favorite with 
JKR.  Harry has been wrong on multiple occasions, as have every other 
character.  I do think it is time for Snape's wrong conclusions to be 
explained and take front and center, although I suspect we have more 
of the other characters' to be explicated.

Now, one thing I simply do not understand about the DDM position is 
the bedrock claim that people just cannot stand the idea of 
Dumbledore being wrong.  Why is that so very hard to swallow?  Why is 
it so much easier to think that Harry, who is after all the hero, is 
wrong and a fool (to put it at its strongest) than that Dumbledore, 
who after all is only a secondary character, is wrong and a fool?  
Harry is far from perfect (thence his charm) but Dumbledore is also 
far from perfect.  

It is true that Harry being wrong fits certain traditional patterns.  
However, Dumbledore being wrong fits traditional patterns as well.  
Many childrens' books feature foolish and incompetent adults (sound 
familiar?) who cannot or willfully refuse to see facts that are 
perfectly obvious to the children.  Harry being wrong fits one set of 
traditional patterns, whereas DD being wrong fits another.

Actually, as I've said, I find all this one very persuasive reason 
why Grey!Snape is a believable and likely outcome (regardless of 
how "good" an outcome it would be).  Of all the !Snapes, it is the 
one that allows JKR the most leeway to include expectations from a 
variety of different models (reversal, growth in multiple characters, 
several different morals of the story, karmic punishment, comeuppance 
and poetic justice, redemption) in one package.  It also has 
the "political" advantage of spreading the pleasure and disgust 
widely across the spectrum of fandom (that way JKR can be sniped at 
from all sides rather than just one). :))


Lupinlore










From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 14 05:10:06 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 05:10:06 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl8aso+93cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl967e+ud34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143009

Sydney:
> As the central relationship, it's bound to undergo a reversal in
> the finale, just as it was bound to reach it's lowest point at the
> end of the 2nd act.  <snipped revenge possibility> However, in my 
> opinion, the 'power' aspect has been played as far secondary to the
> trust and misunderstanding aspect, which is where the primary
> tensions have been left open.  It's also where the 'key' has been
> established before, by having Harry misunderstood Snape's actions 
> waaay back in Book 1, and has misunderstood them in every 
subsequent book. 

Jen: You are saying the through-line of the relationship is trust 
and misunderstanding on Harry's part. In all the other books, Harry 
misintepreted Snape's actions and Harry finds out at the end he was 
wrong, but still doesn't trust Snape. That's is the ongoing 'tension 
to be resolved'.

So HBP broke with tradition. Harry should have learned about part of 
the UV as he did, misintepreted it, and Snape should have been 
proven right once again by the end of the book. "Of course he didn't 
take a UV, it just looked like it! He did take the UV but only to 
help Draco!" But nooooooo, JKR wanted to torture us by putting a 
chapter in that we the readers are aware of and the characters in 
the room, but not establishing whether anyone else is aware of the 
events. 

We get to see Snape doing something outside Harry's POV and the 
action appears to be untrustworthy. In my mind, the through-line of 
the relationship got messed with a bit. Snape should not be seen 
actually *doing* something untrustworthy to maintain the simple 
trust storyline throughout. 

JKR appears to be holding out on both Harry and the reader if the 
story will continue on in a straight trajectory to the logical 
conclusion. Supposedly we are now halfway through one long book, so 
there could be more to come to resolve this. But we've got to have 
something more, perhaps finding out the DADA curse was in effect and 
is a horrible thing that takes away a person's free will, or 
Dumbledore ordered Snape to take the UV, or something....anything!! 

I *wanted* my simple story and don't like this cognitive dissonance 
one bit. :(

Jen






From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 14 06:15:50 2005
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:15:50 -0000
Subject: Mead/haircut&beard/Kreacher/plumbing/wizarding technology and manufacturing
Message-ID: <dl9a2m+s5ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143010

Carol wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142638 :

<< aside from Side-Along Apparition as an escape mechanism >>

Being as how Side-Along Apparition turns out to be possible, WHY
didn't Lily follow James's yelled instruction to 'take Harry and run
[Apparate]' away?

<< How can DD conjure *Madam Rosmerta's* mead? Well, never mind.) >>

Maybe he Summoned it (Accio!) from his liquor cabinet at Hogwarts
rather than conjuring it from nothing.

Lealess wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142647 :

<< (and have you ever had mead -- yuck). >>

Mead is WONDERFUL. It takes like liquid honey, except with some
authority, and it's hardly sticky at all.

Elyse wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142574 :

<< how does one cut his or her hair at Hogwarts? Do they have a spell
that stops it growing? How come Harry, Ron, the Weasleys all have no
haircuts? >>

I imagine that a barber comes from Hogsmead to Hogswarts School once 
a month and the boys with pocket money get hair-cuts. The boys without
pocket money would have to cut each other's hair, which would explain
why the WB merchandisers gave their drawing of Ron such a HIDEOUS
bowl-cut.

Carol wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142626 :

<< I think he has long, matted hair in PoA simply because he's been 
in Azkaban, and logically he should have a long, matted beard to go
with it. >>

I fantasize that, shortly before everything went all to Hell (aka
Halloween night at Godric's Hollow), Sirius had put a permanent
depilatory charm on his face for a joke, and never got around to
taking it off. 

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142580 :

<< Kreacher did have to obey.
Sirius said "Out!" which Kreacher interpreted as an order to leave. >>

And even tho' Harry warned Sirius about that at the time, he has
forgotten that lesson by HBP ... in Chapter 20, when he receives the
report from the 'Elf Tails': '"Kreacher's done well too," said
Hermione kindly; but far from looking grateful, Kreacher averted his
huge, bloodshot eyes and croaked at the ceiling, "The Mudblood is
speaking to Kreacher, Kreacher will pretend he cannot hear ?" 
"Get out of it," Harry snapped at him, and Kreacher made one last deep
bow and Disapparated.' I EXPECTED that to lead to another Kreacher
betrayal of some kind, just as I expected all the security questions
to detect imposters to foreshadow an imposter (presumably one
pretending to be Tonks, who was *so* OOC)...

<< What I wonder is whether Dumbledore offered Sirius the option of
having Kreacher work at Hogwarts. If so, did Sirius turn it down? >>

I hate to think that DD didn't offer Sirius that option simply out of
a desire to force Sirius to learn to deal with Kreacher, so I've
invented a theory that sending Kreacher to work at Hogwarts wouldn't
work unless Kreacher's owner was at Hogwarts.

Darqali wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142597 :

<< Now, my theory is that some poor squib had to make his way in the
Muggle world, being unable to use magic, and he became the first to
introduce modern plumbing to Muggles. [We may even know his name
.... Thomas Crapper, was it not, credited with "inventing" the flush
toilet? But he must have been just a poor squib, passing off a long
held Wizzard technology as his own invention ... :-} ]. Of course,
our Muggle plumbing has no magic to keep it going so we need
"plumbles" to sort things out when pipes clog up and tiolets up-
chuck their contents..... >>

Darqali wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142808 :

<< Sure, we have Muggle radio .... who is to say Wizarding Wireless
doesn't *predate* it? >>

I completely agree with you about the plumbing, but not about the
Wireless. I always say, in the Potterverse, the wizarding folk had
indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water and flush toilets ever
since Atlantis. All the various Muggles who 'invented' indoor plumbing
(Minoans, Romans, 18th century, etc) were really trying to copy what
they had seen when a guest in a wizarding home. Also, the wizarding
folk had elaborate castles ever since Atlantis, so it doesn't matter
that Muggle 'castles' were IIRC wooden huts surrounded by a muddy
ditch and a picket fence at the time of the Founders.

I personally don't believe in Atlantis or primordial matriarchies, but
I also don't believe in flying carpets or House Elves. A large part of
the gimmick of the Potterverse is that many things which are familiar
folklore or fantasy motifs which every reader *knows* aren't real,
*are* real (altho' often garbled) in the Potterverse. So I think I'm
tremendously amusing to add Atlantis and primordial matriarchies to
the list of things that Muggles are too stupid to believe in.

***

I believe that their plumbing empties into the lake via a magical
cleaning spell that transmutes all the waste products into pretty
flowers or such, but I fear that that mgical cleaning spell was put in
place by the lake's inhabitants, such as the merpeople, rather 
than by the castle's occupants. Even tho' I believe that wizards have
had indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water and flush toilets
for over nine thousand years, I have no evidence that medieval wizards
had a higher concern for clean drinking water and pleasant smelling
surroundings than their Muggle contemporaries did.

***

I believe that Potterverse wizarding folk have had late twentieth
century indoor plumbing and Renaissance 'replica' castles since back
before Atlantis sank. They didn't need to know any plumbing,
hydraulics, metallurgy, stonecarving, or architecture because they
made their bathrooms and castles by MAGIC! However, Muggles who visted
wizards and saw the nice things the wizards had, had to invent all
that technology in order to imitate the wizarding goodies. There is a
long history of Muggles trying to imitate wizarding plumbing: Minoan,
Classical Roman, etc.
 
The wizarding folk teach their children a lot of self-enhancing
falsehoods. For example, they teach their children that the reason to
keep magic secret from Muggles is to avoid being pestered by Muggles
wanting favors (and Hagrid, not having completed his education, still
believes that), when in reality the wizarding folk went into hiding
because they were scared of the Muggles attacking them. 

Another example is that they teach their children that Muggles use
technology to imitate what wizards do by magic. Technology probably
*started* that way, Muggles trying to figure out how to make bathrooms
and castles and swords like the wizards had ... this may have remained
true up to the Steam Age, with Muggles inventing inventing railroads
to imitate wizarding self-propelled wagons like at Gringotts and
gaslight to imitate the magical self-lighting candles on the walls 
of wizarding houses ... but by then the discovery and invention of
science and technology had become self-propelling themselves, and with
Electricity, Muggles went on to invent things that the wizarding folk
copy. The Wizarding Wireless Network is obviously an imitation of
Muggle radio, because it's named after "wireless", the British Muggle
name for radio. The wizarding folk would have no other reason to name
it "wireless", because they didn't have a preceeding technology named
"wire" (the telegraph).

***

The kindly condescension to Muggles shown by the older Weasleys IS a
little off. They say, isn't it marvellous that Muggles and their cute
little toys are able to make do without magic? One common Muggle cute
little toy, the telephone, can send a message a great deal faster than
an owl! Other listies have mentioned Muggle bombs that blow up a great
deal more than one street and twelve people. 

Betsy HP wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142558 :

<< Their books are printed in enough of a mass production that the
price of books is not outrageous. >>

You jumped to conclusion that mass production is the wizarding way of
holding prices down. I suspect they use magical production instead. No
printing press at all. Perhaps each copy is produced individually (as
in some ultra modern plans of manufacturing books on demand based on
some digital archive) by piling a number of blank sheets of paper,
placing a master copy on top of the pile, and tapping it with one's
wand while uttering the 'Gutenbergius!' charm (because I have no idea
of the Latin of 'let this word go out to all nations'...) so the pile
of paper is Transfigured into another copy of the book. 

<<  Which means that the WW has a cheap and steady supply of paper
products. Where do they get their oranges or wool or cotton or
cardboard boxes? >> 

The paper and cardboard may well be Transfigured from fallen autumn
leaves. 

... do robe-makers buy cloth or conjure up cloth? If the robe-makers
buy cloth (probably from a middle-man, a jobber), is it cloth that 
was conjured up or Transfigured from raw materials by wizarding 
clothmakers, woven (perhaps on magical looms) by wizarding weavers in
scattered homes or in factories, or woven by Muggles? If it was woven
by wizards (whether Muggle-ishly, on enchanted looms, or simply by
waving a wand over a pile of warp and woof threads), where did they
get the raw materials? I can't off-hand think of what could be
Transfigured into cotton or woolen fiber -- maybe shed cat hair, of
which there seems to be an infinite supply (at least in *my* home).
Maybe the fallen autumn leaves can even be Transfigured into yard
goods. 

The idea that Mrs Weasley can't Transfigure autumn leaves and cat 
hair into new, un-shabby robes for her family but a wizarding factory
can, is similar to the idea that I can't make a sports bottle at home,
but factories make them so cheaply that lots of businesses want to
give them away (with advertising logos on them). 

Asking where they get cotton and wool and silk fiber is similar to
asking where they get food items: are there wizarding farms who grow
grains, fruits, vegetables, and meat animals and sell at wizarding
Farmers' Markets or to wizarding butchers and bakers and greengrocers?
If there are no wizarding farmers (whose existence JKR could easily
prove by Ron mentioning an uncle, aunt, and cousins who are a farm
family), do they conjure up this stuff or do they buy it from Muggles?
If they buy it from Muggles, what do they think about pesticides and
synthetic chemical fertilizers and genetically modified foodstuffs? 

In general, it seems that you and I agree that a lot of stuff is
imported from the Muggle world into the wizarding world; to me, going
into the import-export business is a good opportunity for Muggle-born
wizards and witches. Many of the young people wearing Muggle-style
clothing know only that it's 'cool', not that it's Muggle-style and
sometimes even Muggle-made.

<< There's not been a single mention of a wizard factory. >>

Quidditch Through the Ages. Chapter Nine, "The Development of the
Racing Broom". "[N]ineteenth century broomsticks ... tended to be
hand-produced by individual broom-makers[.]" "The breakthrough
occurred in 1926, when the brothers Bob, Bill, and Barnaby Ollerton
started the Cleansweep Broom Company. Their first model, the
Cleansweep One, was produced in numbers never seen before[.]"







From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 06:43:49 2005
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:43:49 -0000
Subject: overlooked Gryffindor relic?
In-Reply-To: <bbbf1a880511131140p75cc10acmc79141edad735e0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dl9bn5+uai1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143011

 Jane Penhaligon :
>
> We are told over and over that Gryffindor's sword is the only known 
object
> that can be tied to Godric Gryffindor. But I think we may have 
overlooked
> the obvious--the Sorting Hat. We know that Godric whipped the hat 
off of his
> head to be the Sorting Hat--this from the hat itself.
> 
> That said, is it possible that the hat could be a horcrux?

Finwitch:

Why yes - but I suppose that had to take place while he was a 
student... OR during that interview! Harry 'thought he saw' him reach 
for his wand to do something... (I think Tom had obliviated Dumbledore 
about casting spells there or something...)

For the other thing: Gryffindor's sword cannot possibly be a horcrux. 
Cannot, because it wasn't until the end of Harry's second year at 
Hogwarts that the sword came out of the hat. And it took a *true 
Gryffindor* to draw it out. It's just not possible for Tom Riddle 
alias Voldemort - a Slytherin - to have gained access to the Sword. It 
was in the hat until 12-year-old Harry took it out and afterwards 
Dumbledore was watching it. Now that Dumbledore is dead, though...

Finwitch 






From ellecain at yahoo.com.au  Mon Nov 14 07:02:00 2005
From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:02:00 -0000
Subject: overlooked Gryffindor relic?
In-Reply-To: <dl9bn5+uai1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl9cp8+sp7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143012

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
>
>  Jane Penhaligon :
> >
> > We are told over and over that Gryffindor's sword is the only known 
> object
> > that can be tied to Godric Gryffindor. But I think we may have 
> overlooked
> > the obvious--the Sorting Hat. We know that Godric whipped the hat 
> off of his
> > head to be the Sorting Hat--this from the hat itself.
> > 
> > That said, is it possible that the hat could be a horcrux?
> 

Elyse:
While I dislike the idea that Voldemort has the power over such an 
important tool to manipulate children such as the Sorting hat,
I agree that it might be a horcrux simply because of the following 
quote by JKR I found in another post made before GoF:

>"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 they get
> into future books."
>
> see: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/sorting_hat.html







From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 14 07:15:34 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:15:34 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl8vip+gjfu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl9dim+8fm3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143013

Lupinlore wrote:
> 
> Now, one thing I simply do not understand about the DDM position is 
> the bedrock claim that people just cannot stand the idea of 
> Dumbledore being wrong.  Why is that so very hard to swallow?  Why 
is 
> it so much easier to think that Harry, who is after all the hero, 
is 
> wrong and a fool (to put it at its strongest) than that Dumbledore, 
> who after all is only a secondary character, is wrong and a fool?  
> Harry is far from perfect (thence his charm) but Dumbledore is also 
> far from perfect. 

Julie:
Let's see...

1. Who can't stand the idea of Dumbledore being wrong? No one in the 
DDM camp has said that to my recollection. Dumbledore's been plenty 
wrong and has admitted it. He was wrong not to tell Harry what was 
going on in OotP, he was wrong to trust the Dursleys to treat Harry 
like a son (hey, how about even like a nephew?), he was wrong to 
trust Lupin would overcome the DADA curse, he was wrong to believe 
Tom Riddle could change even if he felt he must give Tom a chance, 
etc, etc, etc. Dumbledore's been wrong, and no one is denying it. 

2. Dumbledore is 135? years older than Harry, so he could be expected 
to have a little more wisdom and experience when it comes to judging 
people.

3. Dumbledore has known Snape for the majority of Snape's life. Harry 
hasn't. Dumbledore has also spent much more time with Snape than 
Harry has, and on a level of equals, as Harry has not. Logically, 
Dumbledore should know Snape a good deal better than Harry knows him. 

4. Nothing in Harry being the hero means he has to be right about 
everything. In fact, one component of being a hero in literature is 
learning and growing, coming to a better understanding of the 
surrounding world and the people in it. 

5. For Harry, who's seen only one side of Snape, and one that is a 
deliberately unpleasant student-to-teacher perspective, being wrong 
doesn't make him a fool. He's had limited information to work with. 
Dumbledore, having presumably seen many sides of Snape, as teacher, 
mentor, colleague, boss, confessor, friend, and perhaps more (there 
may yet be more connections between the two than we know), there is 
little excuse for him to be so completely blindsided by Snape's 
assumed reversal of loyalties. 

6. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Snape 
joined the DEs once, then *returned* to the Good side. If Dumbledore 
didn't fully investigate a man who once betrayed his side, making 
sure there was an extremely SOLID reason to trust him again, then 
Dumbledore is more than a fool. He's one very worthless general in 
the war, whose done incalculable harm to his side. 
 
Lupinlore:
> It is true that Harry being wrong fits certain traditional 
patterns.  
> However, Dumbledore being wrong fits traditional patterns as well.  
> Many childrens' books feature foolish and incompetent adults (sound 
> familiar?) who cannot or willfully refuse to see facts that are 
> perfectly obvious to the children.  Harry being wrong fits one set 
of 
> traditional patterns, whereas DD being wrong fits another.

Julie:
*Yawn* As you feel about Joseph Campbell constructs, I feel about 
idiot adults in children's stories. 

Lupinlore:
> 
> Actually, as I've said, I find all this one very persuasive reason 
> why Grey!Snape is a believable and likely outcome (regardless of 
> how "good" an outcome it would be).  Of all the !Snapes, it is the 
> one that allows JKR the most leeway to include expectations from a 
> variety of different models (reversal, growth in multiple 
characters, 
> several different morals of the story, karmic punishment, 
comeuppance 
> and poetic justice, redemption) in one package.  It also has 
> the "political" advantage of spreading the pleasure and disgust 
> widely across the spectrum of fandom (that way JKR can be sniped at 
> from all sides rather than just one). :))
> 
> 
> Lupinlore
>

Julie:
I agree with an earlier comment you made about JKR tying up some 
loose ends in HBP to please the fans. But these were *minor* points 
and inconsistencies that didn't affect the main flow of the stories. 
Snape's character and the resolution of his and Harry's relationship 
is an integral part of the main flow. I feel certain JKR had Snape's 
story written out from the beginning (as she did even for the minor 
characters) and that she's always known if Snape is good, bad, or 
gray--or how many shades of each. And I'm equally certain she isn't 
about to change something that central to her story to suit the 
wishes of fans (who can't begin to agree on this issue anyway!). I 
also doubt when she started this she expected such an enormous 
outpouring of fan debate over her plots, so she had no reason to 
consider "political" advantages of pleasing the widest spectrum of 
fans at that time either. 

Julie 







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 14 07:36:36 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:36:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl8ppb+vtua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl9eq4+jucd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143014

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:

a_svirn:
> The Dursleys are muggles. 
> They don't want to have anything to do with magic.
> Dumbledore dumped Harry at their doorstep, thus meddling with their 
> life.
> 
> They took Harry and by doing so saved his skin. If anything 
> Dumbledore should be damn well grateful for that.

Geoff:
But you have gone on about this point several times. The plain fact is 
that they could have refused to take Harry and, at any time during 
those years, they could have thrown in the towel and put him into care.

I can remember a case some years ago involving one of the young people 
in our church group who was orphaned. In a similar scenario to Harry's, 
an aunt and uncle took him in - very unwillingly - and did just that 
after a year or so. They washed their hands of a family relative.







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 05:54:50 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 05:54:50 -0000
Subject: Snape, honorable? (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <22e.12e3ffe.30a95f3e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dl98ra+e162@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143015

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote:
<SNIP>
>  
> This is also a reason I can't see OFH!Snape at all. His best 
> interest is served by dying a hero, not by living as a pariah.
> (Again I'm assuming with no contrary evidence that Snape  
> has no fear of death, nor desire to remain alive at any cost).


Well, you're making some BIG, and I think mainly unwarranted, 
assumptions.  No fear of death?  He would be a truly extraordinary 
person, then, and I think it's always a bad idea to assume the 
extraordinary.  Indeed, the burden of proof would be to show evidence 
that he IS extraordinary, and does not have the healthy fear of death 
that motivates all normal people, including Harry.  He certainly 
seems to have been pretty shook up by the prank, and that shows a 
very strong, and perfectly normal, desire to stay alive.  No desire 
to remain alive at any cost?  That would be more ordinary.  But what 
cost would be too high?  We don't know anywhere near enough about 
Snape to make that determination.

Why would his best interest be served by dying a hero?  I think one 
could argue, given a particular set of values and a particular 
understanding of the story's themes, that such would be in his best 
interest.  But are those Snape's values?  Maybe they are, but I'm not 
at all convinced.  Of course he wants to prove himself better than 
Sirius and James - but better in what sense?  Morally better?  I 
don't know that we've been shown that's his intention at all, at 
least not clearly.  Better in the sense of more successful?  Dying 
wouldn't help that at all.  And besides, Snape -- as many even of his 
supporters point out -- likes to enjoy his triumphs.  A dead man 
can't gloat, and I don't see Snape as the type, quite frankly, who 
would be very worried about what people say about him if he isn't 
around to enjoy it.

Also, Snape doesn't know he's in a story that possibly features 
themes of honor and sacrifice.  If he did, I'm sure he would 
recognize the tropes and act to bring himself into line with them.  
Being an oblivious literary character, however, he unfortunately may 
not act in his "best interest" as readers, with their quasi-godlike 
perspective, understand it.


> If he's ESE it could make some sense if he wants the power 
> Voldemort's rule supposedly promises (and if he's stupid 
> enough to think Voldemort will give it to him).

Well, if he's ESE then almost by definition his loyalty to 
Voldemort's cause is less than unconditional.  He admitted as much to 
Bellatrix, didn't he?  But more to the point, an ESE!Snape knows that 
dead men gather no power at all.  Evil knows no honor, and a heroic 
death would be the emptiest of victories.

 If he's DDM
> it makes sense that he made the sacrifice for Dumbledore,
> and as part of his continuing atonement for past crimes (and
> for his serious miscalculation in taking the UV at all). But 
> OFH, no sense.

It makes no sense only if you discount self-preservation as an 
important goal of Snape's.  OFH!Snape, as much as ESE!Snape, knows 
that a live villain has more chance than no chance at all, which is 
what a dead hero has.  OFH!Snape may well prefer a victory by 
Dumbledore.  He might, for instance, understand that Voldemort is 
insane and will eventually drag everyone down to destruction, 
including one Severus Snape.  But if the goal, or one of them, 
anyway, is to avoid destruction, then committing suicide by defying 
the imperative of a UV ain't gonna get it done.


 (And I do like GreyDDM!Snape, though I
> see him not as conflicted by his loyalties--which are squarely
> with DD--but by his own destructive tendencies, which prod
> him to act vengefully. 
>  

It does seem to provide very nice explanations for all sorts of 
things, doesn't it?  Of course, that doesn't mean it will be what is 
revealed in the end, but it does fit the available evidence nicely.  
Indeed, of all the Snape theories, it is the only one that really 
addresses the question of why Snape took the UV in the first place 
(and if Snape thought Draco's mission had something to do with Harry, 
rather than DD, then Grey!Snape makes for an almost totally 
convincing explanation).


Lupinlore









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 09:51:27 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:51:27 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl9dim+8fm3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dl9mmv+kfqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143016

Julie:
> Let's see...
> 
> 1. Who can't stand the idea of Dumbledore being wrong? No one in 
the 
> DDM camp has said that to my recollection. Dumbledore's been plenty 
> wrong and has admitted it. He was wrong not to tell Harry what was 
> going on in OotP, he was wrong to trust the Dursleys to treat Harry 
> like a son (hey, how about even like a nephew?), he was wrong to 
> trust Lupin would overcome the DADA curse, he was wrong to believe 
> Tom Riddle could change even if he felt he must give Tom a chance, 
> etc, etc, etc. Dumbledore's been wrong, and no one is denying it. ]


On the contrary, the whole DDM! argument, as far as I can see, rests 
primarily on the idea that Dumbledore just CAN'T be wrong to have 
trusted Snape.  I really don't understand it, myself, but a lot of 
people seem to have a gut reaction to the idea of the old boy just 
not being in the right where Severus is concerned.

> 
> 2. Dumbledore is 135? years older than Harry, so he could be 
expected 
> to have a little more wisdom and experience when it comes to 
judging 
> people.
> 

And yet he still makes mistakes about Quirrel, and Lockheart, and 
Fake!Moody.  Not to mention (perhaps) about the Dursleys.  Not a good 
track record, that.

> 3. Dumbledore has known Snape for the majority of Snape's life. 
Harry 
> hasn't. Dumbledore has also spent much more time with Snape than 
> Harry has, and on a level of equals, as Harry has not. Logically, 
> Dumbledore should know Snape a good deal better than Harry knows 
him. 

And yet he still manages to be wrong about Snape's ability to teach 
Harry Occlumency.  Oh yes, and he manages not to notice in GoF that 
one of his oldest friends, who he has known much longer than he has 
known Snape, is NOT in fact one of his oldest friends who he has 
known much longer than he has known Snape.  The precedent begins to 
build, doesn't it?


> 4. Nothing in Harry being the hero means he has to be right about 
> everything. In fact, one component of being a hero in literature is 
> learning and growing, coming to a better understanding of the 
> surrounding world and the people in it. 


BORING!  Joseph Campbell to the fore, once again.  Not to mention 
that would be extraordinarily insipid and morally revolting.  Oh, and 
did I say BOOORRRIIING!

> 
> 5. For Harry, who's seen only one side of Snape, and one that is a 
> deliberately unpleasant student-to-teacher perspective, being wrong 
> doesn't make him a fool. He's had limited information to work with. 
> Dumbledore, having presumably seen many sides of Snape, as teacher, 
> mentor, colleague, boss, confessor, friend, and perhaps more (there 
> may yet be more connections between the two than we know), there is 
> little excuse for him to be so completely blindsided by Snape's 
> assumed reversal of loyalties. 

Sounds like special pleading to me.  Besides, every side of Snape 
he's seen he's presumably seen of Moody, and probably Quirrel, and 
yet he still managed to be royally fooled.


> 
> 6. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Snape 
> joined the DEs once, then *returned* to the Good side. If 
Dumbledore 
> didn't fully investigate a man who once betrayed his side, making 
> sure there was an extremely SOLID reason to trust him again, then 
> Dumbledore is more than a fool. He's one very worthless general in 
> the war, whose done incalculable harm to his side. 

Oh, Dumbledore doubtless knows more than he has told.  Holding his 
cards much too close to his chest is one of his most grievous sins.  
As is overvaluing those cards ("I thought he could overcome his 
feelings for your father."  How naive can you be?)

<SNIP>
> 
> Julie:
> *Yawn* As you feel about Joseph Campbell constructs, I feel about 
> idiot adults in children's stories. 

You must have been yawning quite a lot through the last six books, 
then.  A bigger bunch of incompetents, idiots, blind fools, and 
magical morons has never been assembled than the adults in the Potter 
books.


<SNIP>
> > 

> >
> 
> Julie:
> I agree with an earlier comment you made about JKR tying up some 
> loose ends in HBP to please the fans. But these were *minor* points 
> and inconsistencies that didn't affect the main flow of the 
stories. 
> Snape's character and the resolution of his and Harry's 
relationship 
> is an integral part of the main flow. I feel certain JKR had 
Snape's 
> story written out from the beginning (as she did even for the minor 
> characters) and that she's always known if Snape is good, bad, or 
> gray--or how many shades of each.


Maybe, maybe not.  Actually, I have a tendency to agree up to a 
point.  I think JKR does have the general direction of things nailed 
down.  But I often get the feeling that she doesn't have the 
specifics down nearly as pat as she likes to let on.  If she does, 
she would have been well advised to check through them about three 
more times, at least once with a calculator to make sure her numbers 
add up :).

> And I'm equally certain she isn't 
> about to change something that central to her story to suit the 
> wishes of fans (who can't begin to agree on this issue anyway!).

Before HBP I probably would have agreed.  Now, I'm not so sure.  Not 
that we would ever know, anyway :).


> I 
> also doubt when she started this she expected such an enormous 
> outpouring of fan debate over her plots, so she had no reason to 
> consider "political" advantages of pleasing the widest spectrum of 
> fans at that time either. 
> 

I'm not so sure that's true, either.  JKR seems to have at least 
partially anticipated having debates and controversy, although I'm 
sure they are much bigger than anything she might have envisaged.  As 
I've said, I never thought of her as stupid, and if you deliberately 
craft a story with a lot of twists and turns and possible solutions, 
a story that partakes of different models and genres, you would be 
pretty dumb not to anticipate that expectations among your readers 
would be pretty divergent.  I don't think JKR, personally, wants to 
leave her readers with a sense that she's shaking a finger, laughing, 
and saying "GOTCHA!"  In this regard, I think the shipping crisis 
blindsided her.  I think she honestly believed she was being fairly 
obvious on that subject.  I don't think she intends to be obvious 
when it comes to Snape, however.  She has been quite deliberate and 
obfuscation there, and so probably envisaged pretty early that there 
would be disagreement and arguing among her readers.  It wouldn't be 
far from there to reach a "political" decision about how best to be 
true to her vision while leaving the fewest readers feeling cheated 
or misled.  In order to accomplish this, I think it means that pretty 
much all of the clues to Snape have to mean something.  Unlike a 
murder mystery, I don't think you can afford red herrings that lead 
nowhere.

  As I said recently, Grey!Snape has many advantages beyond 
the "political."  If you take the position, as many do, that JKR is 
deliberately borrowing bits and pieces of different models, not to 
mention different genres, then Grey!Snape seems to be the one that 
allows her to craft a wide-ranging ending that encompasses several of 
the expectations/tropes/final keys (to use the musical analogy so 
dear to Nora's heart) that characterize those different 
models/genres/traditions of expectation.  In other words, it's the 
solution where essentially all the clues about Snape lead somewhere, 
and none of them are really "Gotchas" or red herrings or artifacts of 
Harry's POV (that other great shibboleth of DDM that I really never 
have understood).


Lupinlore









From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 13:28:51 2005
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:28:51 -0000
Subject: Weasley's finances (was: Re: Harry Helping Ron Financially?)
In-Reply-To: <dl5dqg+u958@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dla3ej+cigf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143017


> Janelle: what it is
> that I often wonder about and that is school books.  Chamber is where
> this is most pertinent, as here we have a scene in the book store. 
> Fred makes a comment about five sets of Lockhart books not coming
> cheap.  but why do they have to buy five sets?  can't they share?  And
> why do they need to buy Ginny second-hand first-year books?  Can't she
> just use Ron's?  Or those of one of the brothers who has left school
> already?..
>

Finwitch:

About sharing -- twins would love to use the same book, I suppose.
However, Molly is (and Percy took his cue) quite adamant about rules.
You know, the school letter says that 'Each student should have a copy
of each of the following:...' In addition, as Ginny is first-year,
they can't know whether she ends up in the same house as her brothers.

As for the books & stuff -- they do recycle. All Ron's books are
recycled, and he's only year ahead of Ginny... Maybe Ron still needs them?

Also, considering that each new teacher of DADA assigns a new book,
that book needs to be bought for each Weasley - particularly obvious
with Lockhart, but...

As for the Standard Book of Spells, Grade One - maybe Ginny had Charlie's?

Others, well, the selectives could be different... 

Finwitch






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov 14 13:00:36 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:00:36 -0000
Subject: Apparition and other things before being 17
In-Reply-To: <42FD96840002296A@mta9.wss.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dla1pk+of8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143018

RM:
> I wonder how many of these things are not so much age sensitive as 
ability
> sensitive. Young witches aren't given time-turners because they can't 
handle
> it, but Hermione is given one to attend classes because they think 
she can
> be trusted.

MercuryBlue:
It's not that they can't handle having a Time-Turner, it's that they 
don't want people messing about in the time stream. Hermione is 
probably the one-in-a-million that the Ministry thinks they can 
actually trust with the little hourglass thing.

(Which, come to think of it, begs the question of just how can anyone 
get twelve O.W.L.s...)

MercuryBlue









From va32h at comcast.net  Mon Nov 14 15:17:42 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:17:42 -0000
Subject: Weasley's finances (was: Re: Harry Helping Ron Financially?)
In-Reply-To: <dla3ej+cigf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dla9qm+goqr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143019

Janelle: 
> what it is that I often wonder about and that is school books.  
> Chamber is where this is most pertinent, as here we have a scene in 
> the book store. Fred makes a comment about five sets of Lockhart 
> books not coming cheap.  but why do they have to buy five sets?  
> can't they share?  And why do they need to buy Ginny second-hand 
> first-year books?  Can't she just use Ron's?  Or those of one of the 
> brothers who has left school already?..


va32h here:

I wondered that too - specifically about the Lockhart books. I suppose 
it could be argued that it would be too difficult to race around the 
school exchanging them between classes. 

I do think the actual line was "we can get a lot of Ginny's things 
secondhand" - things, not books. So maybe that refers to cauldron, 
wand, robes, scales, telescope, things that the older Weasleys would 
still be using.

va32h









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 15:32:51 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:32:51 -0000
Subject: Why did we SEE the UV? (was re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dl967e+ud34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlaan3+f41c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143020

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> We get to see Snape doing something outside Harry's POV and the 
> action appears to be untrustworthy. In my mind, the through-line 
of 
> the relationship got messed with a bit. Snape should not be seen 
> actually *doing* something untrustworthy to maintain the simple 
> trust storyline throughout. 
> 


That's a very good point, Jen.  Why did JKR find it necessary for us 
to SEE the UV?  As you say, if this was a simple continuation of the 
trust angle, there were other ways to do it that didn't violate 
Harry's POV and that would have been much more in keeping with what 
went on in the earlier books.  When an author, or anyone else for 
that matter, violates a well-established and successful practice, 
they generally have a good reason.  What was JKR's reason?

One answer is that this is all just a gigantic red herring.  JKR 
showed the UV so that the readers, as well as Harry, would be 
suckered in against Snape and then be shocked by some sort of 
reversal.  That is the UV isn't really binding, or was set up by DD 
in some unexplicable way for some unfathomable reason, or .... 
whatever.

Frankly, I don't buy it, at least not completely.  Yes, there have 
been reversals before, but this time we have a scene that was set 
off against HP tradition in a way that made it obvious the author 
was saying "Look at this!  It's important!"  It wasn't something in 
Harry's POV, or that we found out from an overheard conversation or 
a found letter.  It was something that we actually saw with no 
excuse that anyone's POV was acting as a filter, and as Jen says 
that is a very different kettle o' fish than Harry overhearing Snape 
and Quirrel or the PS Quidditch match or ....  It could be a red 
herring, but that just doesn't seem right.  That smacks of a games-
playing JKR who is sitting on the sidelines, rubbing her hands 
gleefully and just waiting to jump up and down and say "Fooled you! 
Nyah! Nyah!"  That not only would be obnoxious, but it also strikes 
me as not being much in keeping with the persona that comes across 
in her public appearances.  JKR in her appearances comes across as 
someone who, yes, might show ambiguous and misleading scenes, but 
who doesn't go wildly and extravagantly out of her way just to 
sucker fans into dodging one way so she can left hook them with a 
reversal.  And going wildly and extravagantly out of her way to hit 
readers with a reversal is exactly what the UV scene would be if it 
is a complete red herring.

So, unless I've misread JKR and she is much more of a juvenile games 
player than I imagine, there must be some significance to the UV 
scene.  It must be there because it serves a purpose that just 
inserting it into the plot in the normal way, through Harry's POV, 
would not accomplish.  As Jen says, it tends to make fans question 
the easy assumption that Harry is always wrong in mistrusting Snape, 
and it makes any simple trust/faith through line extremely 
problematic.  Frankly, given all this evidence I wouldn't trust 
Snape just because some elderly schoolmaster said so, even if I did, 
under normal circumstances, have the greatest respect for said 
elderly schoolmaster's wisdom.  And if JKR's message in the end is 
going to be ... well, don't trust yourself, you should trust someone 
against all evidence just because someone else says so (the singsong 
of every corrupt and profoundly oppresive social system in history), 
I'd say she needs to profoundly rethink the basis of her philosophy.

Lupinlore









From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 14 16:19:55 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:19:55 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl9mmv+kfqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dladfb+bhhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143021

Lupinlore:

> On the contrary, the whole DDM! argument, as far as I can see, rests 
> primarily on the idea that Dumbledore just CAN'T be wrong to have 
> trusted Snape.  I really don't understand it, myself, but a lot of 
> people seem to have a gut reaction to the idea of the old boy just 
> not being in the right where Severus is concerned.


Magpie:

It's not that Dumbledore can't be wrong--there could be plenty of 
things Dumbledore didn't know or understand about Snape.  I assume 
there are, in fact.  Snape could definitely have changed sides again 
without Dumbledore's knowing.  But should he be so wrong he's just a 
plot device? Throughout the series the fact that Snape *seems* bad 
comes up all the time, and every time it's asked we're told that 
there's some reason Dumbledore trusts him.  So he can certainly have 
been wrong not to trust him in the end, but surely he has to have had 
some reason we can follow and not just because being the "epitome of 
goodness" requires you to be supremely gullible about people.  It 
makes it seem like Dumbledore trusted Snape just so that he could be 
betrayed by him so that Rowling could have Snape at the school.  (And 
as Sydney correctly pointed out, the scene in the Tower is designed so 
that we don't see a moment where Dumbledore realizes he's been 
wrong.)  Yet HBP still has Harry asking why he should trust Snape and 
Dumbledore hesitating and then not giving him the actual information.  
It seems to me that whatever the deal with Snape, the reason *why* 
Dumbledore trusted him has to mean something.


I mean, here's the thing with this idea for me:

Nora:

There's one area where Harry has definitely been the underdog: being
right about things. This is the card currently being played (and
played hard) as to why Snape is actually good and Dumbledore should
be trusted about him: since when has Harry actually been right about
*anything*?

Magpie:

Harry's right a lot.  Each book ends with Harry triumphant in some 
way.  Plots often revolve around nobody believing him: he knew he 
wasn't the Heir of Slytherin, he knew he didn't put his name in the 
Goblet, he knew Voldemort was back in OotP.  In fact, book V seemed to 
make a big case for people needing to believe Voldemort was back 
because Harry said so.  Second hand trust was pretty important in the 
DA. All the people who challenged Harry to prove himself were punished 
in some way--Zacharias Smith, in HBP, turns out to be rememberd 
as "that idiot from the DA" for this.

Harry isn't Sherlock Holmes and he never solves the mystery himself, 
but then, neither does anyone so it's not like Harry's constantly 
frustrated at his wrong guesses and shown up by other people.  All of 
Harry's friends believed Snape was guilty in PS--and Harry was correct 
about thinking Snape had something personal against him.  Nobody knew 
it was Ginny in CoS.  Everyone thought Sirius was guilty in PoA.  
Nobody knew Moody was Crouch in GoF.  Hermione does sometimes figure 
things out--Rita being an animagus, Lupin being a werewolf, she had 
figured out it was a basilisk before she was petrified (but can't tell 
Harry, so it's up to him and Ron to figure it out for themselves) she 
suggested the MoM was a trap in OotP.  But I don't think it's that big 
of a deal in the story that Harry gets surprised at the end of every 
book. I would suspect plenty of fans are used to thinking Harry is 
right.  In HBP Draco was openly the villain-Harry, Hermione, Ron and 
Dumbledore all knew he was up to something.  Draco still did do his 
usual thing in HBP in that he was guilty, but slightly more innocent 
than Harry thought he was.  Harry and Dumbledore are both right about 
Draco in different ways.

With Snape, it's not like Harry has had a thought-out theory about 
Snape being a triple agent throughout the series and nobody believed 
him, he just hates Snape because Snape loathes him and likes to see 
him suffer.  (It's not even Harry who first suspects Snape is 
intentionally opening his mind to Voldemort during his Occlumency 
lessons--it's Ron.) The events of HBP didn't change anything about the 
Harry/Snape relationship at all.  Harry's hated him and it's been 
personal between them before HBP even started. Maybe Harry hates him 
more now, but for all Harry's great power being love, Harry's been 
running on hate for a while now.  Snape being guilty seems like it 
would be more of a relief to Harry, than a victory in line with people 
believing Voldemort had returned.  It's not like Snape turning out to 
be evil changes the fact that he wasn't stealing the PS and wasn't 
hexing Harry's broom, or wasn't the villain in any of the other books.

Dumbledore's being wrong about Snape just doesn't seem to have 
anything to do with Harry for me.  Dumbledore's not the main 
character, I'm not privvy to the Dumbledore/Snape relationship.  I 
don't know just how much of a blow it would be to Dumbledore to find 
out Snape betrayed him (and I didn't see it be a blow to him in the 
Tower scene).  I never knew why he trusted him or how much. Harry 
never trusted Snape on Dumbledore's word, so if that was the danger, 
he dodged a bullet there.  Good thing Harry never did that thing it 
would have been bad of him to do.  Ironically, it makes it a good 
thing that Dumbledore finally kicked it since Harry is finally rid of 
his interference.  Here for six books Harry's been all, "Snape hates 
me, I tell you!" and Dumbledore's said, "Yes, he does hate you. But 
he's not a Death Eater, which I know for reasons I won't tell you."  A 
totally artificial obstacle has been removed and we can get smiting.

Now, of course the book's told us flat-out that Snape is a traitor and 
a bad guy who played Dumbledore for a fool all these years.  It tells 
us in chapter 2, then shows us in the Tower.  So it's not like that's 
not a possibility that Snape is just a bad guy.  The real story about 
Snape turns out to have happened offstage between him and Dumbledore.  
In chapter two of the sixth book of a seven book series we're just 
told okay, here's the real deal with Snape, so think of him this way 
from now on.  It won't be a surprise for you when he kills Dumbledore, 
because here he is swearing to do so.  It seems to come down to 
whether the tension about trusting Snape was an important part of the 
story or just a distraction to keep Harry busy until he got out of 
school.  And maybe that's what he is, and he's just Pettigrew or 
Voldemort Jr., but my instincts at the end of Book VI were that that 
wasn't the solution.  Not because I think Snape's the big hero or I 
don't think he killed Dumbledore, it just seemed like the book was 
signalling me that way.


Jen Reese:

So HBP broke with tradition. Harry should have learned about part of
the UV as he did, misintepreted it, and Snape should have been
proven right once again by the end of the book. "Of course he didn't
take a UV, it just looked like it! He did take the UV but only to
help Draco!" But nooooooo, JKR wanted to torture us by putting a
chapter in that we the readers are aware of and the characters in
the room, but not establishing whether anyone else is aware of the
events.

Magpie:

Broke with tradition...or just played a variation on it?  Book VI 
seemed to me like it was, as JKR has described it, a set up for Book 
VII.  This is the first half of the final story, and in the middle of 
the story Harry usually is mistaken as to what is going on.  HBP 
resolved the Draco story, but possibly not the Snape story.  And the 
Draco story (although it left him, too, at a place where he's poised 
to tip in one of many potential directions--we have to see which way 
he'll fall), for all the ways HBP's plot was different, it still 
followed the pattern set out for Draco earlier, and seemed to me to 
support the wisdom of Dumbledore's pov. 

Also, and this may be a big flaw of HBP, but I don't really get what 
the other characters know and what they don't.  Some people think 
Snape didn't know what he was vowing to do in chapter two, others 
think Dumbledore didn't know what Snape had vowed to do either.  The 
way I read it, Snape intentionally vowed to do Draco's task, which was 
kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore knew that he had made this vow.  Harry 
overheard something about this vow and told Dumbledore and Dumbledore 
already knew about it.  Though Dumbledore *could* have not known about 
that third provision.  We don't know.  I assumed he did, others 
didn't.  So it's not like tension comes from us knowing something the 
characters don't, because they all seem to quite possibly know as much 
as we do. Perhaps an editor should have made sure in the end we all 
knew what everyone knew when.

-m







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 17:30:37 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:30:37 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl9eq4+jucd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlahjt+rlmd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143022

 
> Geoff:
> But you have gone on about this point several times. The plain fact 
is 
> that they could have refused to take Harry and, at any time during 
> those years, they could have thrown in the towel and put him into 
care.
> 
> I can remember a case some years ago involving one of the young 
people 
> in our church group who was orphaned. In a similar scenario to 
Harry's, 
> an aunt and uncle took him in - very unwillingly - and did just that 
> after a year or so. They washed their hands of a family relative.
>
Apparently they didn't receive exploding letters when they decided to 
wash their hands of the child. No did his relative life hang upon 
their decision. 

a_svirn






From darqali at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 17:15:33 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:15:33 -0000
Subject: Wizarding Inventions
Message-ID: <dlagnl+6em1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143023

I am trying again in this thread, because *I* am attempting to point out what we can learn {and presume} about Wizard Inventions and Technology from canon, whilst those arguing I am wrong are citing pure real muggle history to say I am wrong.

I agree we don't see Wizard children walking around with the 
wizarding equilivant of ipods or walkmen; but I don't see how this 
leads to the conclusion Wizards "don't have" any similar devices.  
Please look at what we *do see*:

(1) The Pensive:  Here is a "Recording Device" which has functions 
similar to movie film {with sound} or video .... only better!  Yes, 
it is described as a recepticle of "thoughts" and/or "memories" of a 
given person.  Yet it allows *anyone* to experience *an enire moment* 
of time; and the "memory" to be "played" can be stored and re-played, 
even after the "person of origin" is dead.

A Wizarding Device using similar Wizard "technology" could be used to 
record/play any form of music, either audio only or visual as well as 
audio.  We don't know that Wizards *don't* have such devices; the use 
of the pensive {which *records* and then *plays back*} suggests they 
very well *may*.

Such wizard "technology* could clearly create similar entertainment 
to cinima or television, and could be used for education as well 
{think of what a more imaginative teacher than Prof. Binns could make 
of Pensive "technology" in History lessons}.

Not convinced?  Then consider:

(2)   Omnioculars!

Here is wizard technology which combines several concepts of 
"technology" we Muggles use:  Binoculars, of course; and  a video 
type recorder, with slow-motion and sub-titles; and a "Tivo" kind of 
ability to adjust from "real time" to past plays ..... With a 
comentary of on-going events built in, too!

And they don't even require batteries!  Wow!

My point is that we've seen these things in Potterverse *because the 
stories have brought us to points where they are naturally included 
and explained.*

JKR has had no need to explain what the Wizarding World uses in place 
of Walkmen or ipods.  Her story lines have not needed to tell us, but 
that is *no reason* to assume they don't exist.

For someone whose real life includes constant use of such things, 
perhaps it seems they "can't exist" in the Wizarding World because we 
don't see them.  But while I know what an i-pod is {sort of} I don't 
actually have one, and never will.  Nor  do I have a cell phone, nor 
any of hundreds of other devices I *know about*.  Those who do and 
can't imagine living without them constantly in use wonder about 
their *apparent* absence in JKR's writing.  I don't, because I 
expect JKR to tell us things that are important to flow of the story, 
and not include other irrelevant bits we can *assume* to be present 
in the WW. {I don't know what wizards use for a can opener, for 
example.  I use an old hand type, though I know there are electric 
models.  I expect wizards open cans sometimes, but don't wonder why 
we don't see what they use in place of an electric can opener because 
there is no need for JKR to tell us.}

The same is true for music forms, groups, and methods of 
distribution, ich *some* readers seem to be curiously *absent*.  Yet 
to me {a farmer in her sixth decade in a very rural area  on the 
plains of N America} the amount of music that appears in JKR's 
writing seems natural and "about right" to show the WW *does* have 
music, just as the Muggle world does.  Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog 
card includes his favorite form of music. He hums to himself. There 
is Wizard Wireless; Molly Weasely has a favorite singer, not 
appreciated by Fleur, who is of another generation {but Fluer sings 
the same song ...}.  There is live music at Nearly Headless Nick's 
death-day party; another form at the Yule Ball  {a group famous and 
appreciated by the "current generation" of the stories. There is a 
music box at Grimould Place.  Slughorn has his piano, and a 
gramophone .... and I may have missed some references.

Lack of reference to "wizard ipod equilivants" is not necessary to 
the stories, but that does not mean the WW does not have such.  And 
whatever they *do* have is probably superior, because it will work 
without batteries, and is likely multi-functionl {remembering the 
omnioculars}.

Finally, please remember all those little instruments in Dumbledore's 
office, whose functions we don't know ..... and may never know.  
Wizards have plenty of technology we know nothing of, and much of it 
is superior to our own.  JKR has told us about *some* of it; that 
which is *relevant* to the Harry Potter stories.  {I-pods have not 
been relevant, and so have been absent from cannon.  No reason to 
assume therefore they don't *exist* in the WW.}

darqali






From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov 14 18:25:01 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:25:01 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dl0epj+b89u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlakpt+c6pf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143024

Lucianam:
> Assuming Voldemort was after Godric's sword or the Sorting Hat, 
> for example (any more ideas to possible horcruxes in Hogwarts?), 
> how exactly would his teaching DADA help him get them? I guess any 
> teacher in Hogwarts has the same chance to steal such objects as 
> the Defense teacher. Can't see what's so special in that job!

MercuryBlue:
Did Voldemort know about the Sword? My impression was that it was 
sitting safe inside that Hat for ages beyond count.

If the Sorting Hat was something Voldemort wanted as a Horcrux (uh-
oh...), then there's no reason why it couldn't already BE a Horcrux 
(big uh-oh...). He was a murderer three times over before he was 
sixteen, remember? Two of those soul fragments went into the diary 
and the ring. There was still a third. And he was a model student, 
prefect, Head Boy...he probably had no shortage of chances to enter 
the Headmaster's office. All he would have needed was thirty seconds 
alone...

Lucianam:
> I'd also like to know why Lupin chose Defense. I guess he wanted 
> to prove he could deal with Dark Creatures, even if he was a Dark 
> Creature himself - a sort of personal challenge. I don't think 
> this is important enough for JKR to include in B7, but I've been 
> reading ESE!Lupin threads, and ever since I'm very interested in 
> everything Remus.

MercuryBlue:
Lupin didn't choose squat.

Dumbledore needed a Defense teacher. More to the point, Dumbledore 
needed someone who was familiar enough with a certain recently-
escaped mad mass murderer to be able to predict his moves and plug 
any holes in the wards that he might be able to use to get at a 
certain thirteen-year-old. And there was Remus Lupin, old school 
friend of Black's, knew him very well...also conveniently 
unemployed. Well, let's solve two problems at once: give Remus the 
Defense position!

Mind, Dumbledore had to talk Remus into it, first, which probably 
took some doing. And, had Remus decided on his own to become a 
teacher, somehow I doubt he would have chosen Defense. He did know 
he would be chased out of the school the minute it became public 
knowledge that he was a werewolf, and werewolves are, after all, on 
the Defense curriculum.

Lucianam:
> And about minor characters, we definitely need to know if Slughorn 
> is a goog guy or not. I wasn't convinced of his loyalty in HBP, 
> and JKR needs to explain exactly what he saw in Harry to make him 
> accept the Potions teacher position (in my opinion, he saw a 
> goldmine in Harry, but I'd like to know).

MercuryBlue:
Slughorn's heart is in the right place. He's just scared. Yes, he 
probably did see a gold mine in Harry, but he also wanted the safety 
of Hogwarts (once he was assured that the danger of being in the 
Order wasn't part of the package).








From elfundeb at gmail.com  Mon Nov 14 18:34:34 2005
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:34:34 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl7tft+js0j@eGroups.com>
References: <dl3tc2+gh3t@eGroups.com> <dl7tft+js0j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0511141034k2ef17e2et5916ff3e2a971bee@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143025

Jen has thrown out so much interesting stuff in the past few days rethinking
so many of our issues. I can't respond to everything, so I'll just bite off
a little bit.
 Jen:
You know, gut instinct aside about the tower scene, I've been
thinking about another Snape option, Grey!Snape lets call him, in
honor of his underpants.

Grey!Snape bears more than a passing resemblence (but is clearly not
identical) to something I posted last month, which I won't repeat, but which
can be read here:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142005
 Jen:
The idea of Dumbledore trusting in Snape's ultimate goodness is the
key to this guy. Dumbledore doesn't completely trust Snape the DE,
the man who joined Voldemort, but he does trust Severus Snape, his
former student and the person who turned from Voldemort for some
still partially shrouded reason.
 But Snape is vulnerable, he's morally weak, and even Dumbledore's
faith can't protect him from himself. He is his own worst enemy in
cliched terms.
 Debbie:
As I see it, Snape's weakness has two root causes:
(1) His emotions, which in most circumstances he is enormously adept at
controlling, but he has a weak spot in that the wounds of his adolescence
still have not fully healed ("fools . . . who cannot control their emotions,
who wallow in memories and allow themselves to be provoked so easily").
These issues come to the forefront in the Shrieking Shack and in the
disastrous end to the Occlumency lessons.
(2) He plays to win. This doesn't mean that, like Peter, he shifts his
alliances depending on who seems to have the upper had. It means that he is
not only convinced that what *he* brings to the table will make the
difference, but he thinks (or thought, at any rate) that he can play the
double-agent game and emerge unscathed.
At the end of HBP, his loyalty to Dumbledore has compromised his
double-agent status and the UV has saddled him with a cowardly teenager with
a price on his head. Regardless of his loyalty, he must be passionately
loathing Dumbledore at this point for having put him into this position.
  Jen:
So Dumbledore does keep him from the DADA job, knowing the curse may
wreak havoc on their precariously balanced faith in each other and
he tries for sixteen long years to nurture the part of Snape that is
still good. He tries to bolster other people's belief in Severus,
hoping his faith in him and his goodness will win out.
 Debbie:
My thinking is similar, but I give Snape credit for genuine remorse and
loyalty. Dumbledore's trust is justified because for sixteen years Snape's
loyalty is with Dumbledore. The Occlumency fiasco was a revelation about the
state of Snape's emotions, but not an indicator of his loyalty. This is why,
I think, we are shown in OOP that the old Marauders-Snape conflict brought
out similar emotions in Sirius. Neither one can surmount this aspect of
their past, but we should be wary, even in retrospect, of reading this as a
sign that Snape was less than loyal. Rather, it sets up the turmoil he faces
at the end of HBP.
Jen:
A combination of the DADA curse and his weakness
bring him down by first taking the UV, and then following the course
through to its logical end.
 Debbie:
I like this! I had not thought that his entrapment into the UV was the
result of the DADA curse, but you're right. The DADA curse doesn't get much
play, but its effect is a mirror to the luck conferred by Felix Felicis.
With Felix Felicis everyone makes the right choices. Almost as the DADA
curse kicks in (in my earlier post I concluded that Snape had been appointed
to the DADA job before Spinners End), Snape's double agent role is
compromised by the UV.

Jen:
So we see that Dumbledore did not ask Harry to bring Lupin or the
other Order members, any of the noble folks. He asked for Snape. He
asked for the person who was bound by the UV, was not a brave person
in the traditional sense. Dumbledore chose to land on the tower
under the Dark Mark and called for a person whose hands are tied.
Why?
 Debbie:
I see Dumbledore's actions on the Tower as directed to the rescue and
redemption of Draco. Snape is the only person who could have accomplished
that. Anyone else would have engaged the other DEs in battle and perhaps
distracted Draco sufficiently from his fears so he could have AK'd
Dumbledore himself.
 I found Lupinlore's conversation with his military friend to be quite
fascinating, particularly this tidbit:
"He also openly despises the CIA and other
intelligence agencies and admits that one of the main purposes in his
present activity is to argue against allowing special exceptions to the
law for intelligence gathering and covert activities."
 I suspect that it is no different in the WW. Espionage has always been an
extreme sport, and anyone who plays that game must be willing to play the
game through to the end. Snape must have always known that he might be
forced into an action like the AK on the tower, and he has always known full
well that he has no expectation that he could escape justice if he is
captured after committing such an act. I think this is an important point
because without this prior knowledge and understanding, it would be an act
of evil on Dumbledore's part to ask or expect Snape to carry out the AK.
 Jen:
And Dumbledore, on the tower, does realize that he's asked too much
from someone once again, that his belief did not the man make. BUT,
he still believes even if Snape kills him and saves himself, Snape
does want Voldemort gone and cares for Draco as much as he is
capable of. So the pleading was not 'you must kill me' or 'you must
not kill me' but 'you must follow our plans through to conclusion,
you must help Harry defeat Voldemort, you are capable of this
whatever the personal price'. You know, in a nutshell ;).
 Debbie:
Just to clarify here, I think you're saying that Snape *is* loyal to
Dumbledore here, in which case the weakness was entering into the UV which
committed him to the action that he is now carrying out. (He has no choice
on the tower -- either he kills Dumbledore, or they both die, and probably
Draco, too, since there are four bloodthirsty DEs at the ready.) But, yes, I
think Dumbledore is asking for Snape's *continued* loyalty, which is not
assured.

Jen:
And Snape *will* do the right thing in the end, Dumbledore's faith
in him will prove to be true, that he is capable of being faced with
temptation and won't try to 'slither out' at a pivotal moment.
 Debbie:
I agree with this, but Snape's emotional state at this point doesn't allow
him to see this clearly. I think Snape is left at the end of HBP alone with
his emotions and Draco Malfoy and a bunch of decisions to make. His future
loyalty is not assured, but I agree that he will do the right thing in the
end.

Jen:
I still love the idea that Dumbledore's unwavering trust in Snape
will be proven true because it so beautifully counters his mistrust
of Riddle, which was believed by none.
 Debbie:
This is true, but I never liked plain-vanilla DDM!Snape because there's no
element of choice. This is why I picture Snape out there somewhere in his
own private hell, trying to make up his mind whether to carry out
Dumbledore's plan to save Draco or whether to go over to Voldemort and save
himself. What would really justify Dumbledore's faith would be for Snape to
emerge from this crucible and do the right thing. It's easy to be faithful
while ensconced in a safe job at Hogwarts; to really justify Dumbledore's
faith he must face a final test. That's one reason why I think Snape must
have actually been loyal to Dumbledore up to and including the moment of the
AK on the tower.

Sydney:
> The larger objection is a wavering, agonizing, side-switching
> Snape is just such a massive focus-puller. It would make Snape,
> not Harry, making all the critical choices and going through the
> most interesting emotions at the end of the book. Story-wise I'm
> much happier having Snape running down a pretty clear,
> straightforward track, and Harry doing all the mind-changing. For
> this reason I would prefer Evil!Snape to conflicted!Snape, because
> much as I'd rather read a book about Snape, this ain't it.
 Debbie:
Having set up an apparent contradiction by juxtaposing the look of revulsion
on Snape's face and Dumbledore's apparent plea, both DDM!Snape and ESE!Snape
seem too simplistic as explanations. I would find Book 7 quite compelling if
I were to read about Harry adjusting his view of Snape as Snape's own final
decision unfolds in front of him. That's what made the Shrieking Shack so
compelling -- Harry's understanding of who his enemies were changed moment
to moment as the Marauders made their revelations in front of him.
 Debbie
apologizing for reorganizing all of Jen's points


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 14 18:45:56 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:45:56 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dladfb+bhhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlam14+2q80@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143026


> Magpie:
> 
> Broke with tradition...or just played a variation on it?  Book VI 
> seemed to me like it was, as JKR has described it, a set up for 
Book 
> VII.  This is the first half of the final story, and in the middle 
of 
> the story Harry usually is mistaken as to what is going on.  HBP 
> resolved the Draco story, but possibly not the Snape story.  And 
the 
> Draco story (although it left him, too, at a place where he's 
poised 
> to tip in one of many potential directions--we have to see which 
way 
> he'll fall), for all the ways HBP's plot was different, it still 
> followed the pattern set out for Draco earlier, and seemed to me 
to 
> support the wisdom of Dumbledore's pov. 
> 


So Harry's wrong yet again?  That would be boring and insipid beyond 
belief, and if it's used as a way to release Snape from punishment 
for the abuse he's subjected Harry to, it would be morally corrupt 
to the point of inducing projectile vomiting.  

I agree with Nora.  Harry's been shown to be wrong a lot, and I for 
one am extremely tired of it and wouldn't find a DDM plot either 
intelligent or interesting.  Rather it would be a preachy and cheesy 
contrivance ham fistedly used to force an unbelievable ending.

You do have a point about certain kinds of Snape theories reducing 
Dumbledore to a plot device.  The problem with most DDM!Snape ideas 
is that they reduce HARRY to a plot device -- an excuse for the 
noble Severus Snape to make his awful sacrifice and this bring about 
victory for the side of light.  

As you say, Draco provides a model in which both sides are proven 
right, to a point.  Harry is right, but not completely right.  
Dumbledore is a mistaken and blind fool, but not completely mistaken 
and not completely blind.  Such a blending of endings and 
expectations, in which the various threads are tied up in a way that 
shows most clues and theories to have some degree of validity, may 
perhaps be a hint about what is to come.


Lupinlore










From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov 14 18:40:15 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:40:15 -0000
Subject: Harry Helping Ron Financially?
In-Reply-To: <dl1405+i3fj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlalmf+nbaj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143027

foodiedb:
>I was wondering why Harry doesn't offer to financially 
> help Ron and family?  For example, why doesn't he offer to buy Ron a 
> new wand in Chamber, or why doesn't he offer to buy them a new 
house, 
> etc.., etc.

MercuryBlue:
Harry at some point (when I forget, I think CoS or PoA) says that he 
would cheerfully split the entire contents of his Gringotts vault with 
the Weasleys, but he doesn't actually offer to do so because he knows 
perfectly well that they'd never take it.

MercuryBlue








From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 14 20:04:30 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:04:30 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlam14+2q80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlaqke+cp5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143028

Lupinlore:

> So Harry's wrong yet again?  That would be boring and insipid 
beyond 
> belief, and if it's used as a way to release Snape from punishment 
> for the abuse he's subjected Harry to, it would be morally corrupt 
> to the point of inducing projectile vomiting.  

Magpie:

LOL!  We don't want that!:-) It depends on what Harry is wrong 
about.  Obviously he's got to have some things left to learn in Book 
VII, but some ways could definitely be bad storytelling.  For 
instance, I don't think we're going to get a convoluted explanation 
that illustrates that any time it looked like Snape did something 
kind of bad it really wasn't bad or wasn't his fault, and anything 
good that happened was somehow due to Snape--which I do think is 
sometimes suggested. I don't think we'll find out Snape's always 
been this nice guy and Harry should really be grateful to him.  But 
I don't have a problem with having more to learn about exactly what 
was going on in Book VI, since the book seemed to indicate there was 
more going on than I was seeing. We have, though, I think, moved 
beyond the simple, "When you thought Snape was hexing your broom, he 
was really trying to save you!"

Lupinlore: 
> 
> I agree with Nora.  Harry's been shown to be wrong a lot, and I 
for 
> one am extremely tired of it and wouldn't find a DDM plot either 
> intelligent or interesting.  Rather it would be a preachy and 
cheesy 
> contrivance ham fistedly used to force an unbelievable ending.
> 
> You do have a point about certain kinds of Snape theories reducing 
> Dumbledore to a plot device.  The problem with most DDM!Snape 
ideas 
> is that they reduce HARRY to a plot device -- an excuse for the 
> noble Severus Snape to make his awful sacrifice and this bring 
about 
> victory for the side of light.  

Magpie:

I wouldn't want to see that either--and I think we agree on what 
types of solutions would give us that sort of ending.  Some of the 
explanations for Snape's actions do seem like exactly that.  He's 
not just misunderstood or in the wrong place at the wrong time and 
mean Harry was too prejudiced to notice.  Harry doesn't have the 
viewpoint to know everything that's going on in the story from the 
adults pov, and as a kid he's come into the story halfway through--
that's one of the things I find really compelling about the story, 
actually, the way that as a kid Harry just has no way of knowing how 
all these people are connected and who they were way back when.  
(Draco and Neville have been put in similar situations, both having 
had to deal with adults who have significant ties to their parents 
etc.)  In PS, Harry is mistaken in thinking Snape is taking the 
stone, but he's not mistaken that Snape has something personal 
against him.  

And that's no small thing for Harry to be right about, because 
throughout the series Snape's personal hatred for him is at least as 
important a motivation as his loyalty to Dumbledore, imo.  We can 
*see* that working in Snape in ways we don't see his loyalty to 
Dumbledore at all, we're just told to trust it.  In the Occlumency 
lessons it seems like hatred of Harry/James won out over Dumbledore 
no contest.  I would say that both Harry and Draco (who were 
originally compared to James and Snape in PS) have moved beyond that 
place already in HBP.  Perhaps that's one more reason I have a hard 
time believing it when Snape is made out to be the greatest hero 
etc., especially one who is watching over both of them and deserves 
credit for every correct thing either of them does, somehow. 

Lupinlore:
> As you say, Draco provides a model in which both sides are proven 
> right, to a point.  Harry is right, but not completely right.  
> Dumbledore is a mistaken and blind fool, but not completely 
mistaken 
> and not completely blind.  Such a blending of endings and 
> expectations, in which the various threads are tied up in a way 
that 
> shows most clues and theories to have some degree of validity, may 
> perhaps be a hint about what is to come.

Magpie:

I would hope so.  I mean, believe me, while I do think that further 
understanding of Snape seems important I can't imagine an ending 
where Snape is just misunderstood.  There's always been that 
interpretation running through the series, I know, explaining how 
everything from why Snape torments Neville to why he takes the UV to 
why his hair looks greasy is always due to some completely self-
sacrificing reason.  I don't think where it's going at all.

-m






From ornawn at 013.net  Mon Nov 14 19:58:07 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:58:07 -0000
Subject: Why not kill Lily?
Message-ID: <dlaq8f+3lqm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143029

Roberta:

>Perhaps the rewards are only material things, perhaps not. Who
>knows? I was speculating about possible motives for Voldemort to
>reward followers with what they want. What Peter wanted in that
>moment was a hand. It would have been pointless to give him
>something else. If another follower wanted a lover, it would have
>been pointless to give him, say, a hand. :)

Orna:
I understand that you don't really think it was for Snape's sake 
that he spared Lily. I don't think this scenario could be for Snape, 
or for any other DE.

I can't imagine Snape telling Voldermort, he wants Lily for himself, 
because he loves her. It's totally contradictory to Snape's 
character, and also to Voldermort to go ahead with it. If anything, 
it would make him keener on killing her. I can think of Snape 
telling Voldermort to spare Lily to use her somehow (for potions, 
<g>), but I don't think so. I think Voldermort's had some reason of 
his own for not wanting to kill her and even this is puzzling. 
Because he doesn't sound very interested in keeping her alive ?
 "stand aside, silly girl", and he didn't take precautions, to let 
her stay alive. If he really wanted to spare her life ? he could 
have stunned her, or found some other way of managing her.

>Roberta:
>I don't agree with the theory that he wanted to torture her by 
making
>her watch the death of her son. Voldemort didn't go to Godric's
>Hollow to have fun torturing and killing people. He went to
>eliminate a threat, and that requires single-mindedness. You go
>after the threat, and you get rid of anything in the way. You don't
>waste precious time telling the kid's mother to get out of the way
>just because it's cool to watch her reaction to her child's death.

Orna:
I don't think he did it just because of thinking it's cool . 
I had many thoughts about it, one of them is:   It seems, that he 
just gave her the opportunity, to stay alive ? at the expense of her 
baby's life. When she didn't take this opportunity, he killed her 
straightforward. That's why I think, that in fact, that was his 
whole point ? to have her give up her motherly concern and 
sacrifice. I think, that had Lily acted according to his code of 
thinking, he would have been quite satisfied, Harry dead, and here 
goes another mother, who cares for herself, more than for her son.

Another option is that perhaps he wanted to crucio-interrogate her ? 
after all, he must have been curious about why this boy was destined 
to be his potential vanquisher. It's like DD said in the cave ? he 
wouldn't want her to be dead immediately. He would want to know what 
it is that enabled her to have a child ? as powerful as that. That 
would be in line of eliminating the threat ? trying to understand 
the nature of this potential threat. After all, he couldn't rely on 
hearing every future prophecy, and he would want to know what the 
essence of this danger is.  

Paradoxically ? he got an answer by her act of sacrifice and by 
Harry staying alive - ? and ? because Lily's act could have told him 
that love means more than death, and that the main power was her 
love which saved Harry, and that's also Harry's power. But 
Voldermort isn't able to hear or remember, or understand this power. 
Even when he hears it in CoS, he belittles it, and when he feels it 
in OotP, he flies right away ? quite enough clues to recognize this 
as a power, if you are somehow open to it.
Well, I can say in defense of Voldermort, that Harry himself isn't 
too convinced that love is much of a power. I suppose that that will 
be his task in book 7.  

Orna
 









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 20:40:07 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:40:07 -0000
Subject: What would a successful AK mean?
In-Reply-To: <dl3f60+kvic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlasn7+5rau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143030



Valky wrote:
> Assuming that this is an established fact then it follows that a
> succesful Avada Kedavra demands that Snape possess this psyche/emote
> in order to cast it. I fail to see this unambiguously established. 
In
> fact I see deliberate overtones of it being weighed *against*
> throughout HBP. Specifically they are: Bella's accusation that Snape
> slithers out of action, and Dumbledore insisting that Snape left the
> Death Eaters because he felt remorse for putting *both* Harry's
> parents in the line of fire. There is huge ambiguity in this 
statement
> but it reaches all the way to the edges where Snape can't even 
stomach
> being involved in the death of his *sworn Nemesis*. IOW Snape might
> not even have been able to stomach James dying as a result of his
> actions. It's a slim chance but it wasn't left out, and that makes 
it
> impossible to say that Snape possesses the psyhce/emote for a
> successful AK. 
> 
> So my second point is that a successful AK demands that Snape was
> disimpassioned? to human life (and possibly even split his soul).
> Ultimately impossible to determine.
> 
> These are the two things that a successful AK means IMO. 
> 
> Valky

zgirnius:

I took the weekend off-but I'm really glad I went back to look at the 
older messages today! I would have thought by now that Snape, 
Dumbledore, and the events of the Astronomy Tower have been dissected 
and hashed over until there was nothing left, but the way you wrote 
up the idea of an unsuccessful AK just turned on a light bulb for me. 
Murder (which tears the soul) is a crime of intent. The AK spell 
requires murderous intent to work, a failed one indicates lack of 
intent. Even though this particular AK (failed or not) led to the 
death of its target.

I snipped the entire portion about the events of that evening and how 
DD ought to have been thining about them and reacting to them. 
Because all I have to say about it is, me too!








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 20:46:19 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46:19 -0000
Subject: Harry Helping Ron Financially?
In-Reply-To: <dlalmf+nbaj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlat2r+o844@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143031

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng"
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:
>
> foodiedb:
> > I was wondering why Harry doesn't offer to financially 
> > help Ron and family?  For example, why doesn't he offer to
> > buy Ron a new wand in Chamber, or why doesn't he offer to 
> > buy them a new house,  etc.., etc.

> MercuryBlue:
> Harry at some point (when I forget, I think CoS or PoA) says 
> that he would cheerfully split the entire contents of his 
> Gringotts vault with the Weasleys, but he doesn't actually 
> offer to do so because he knows perfectly well that they'd 
> never take it.
> 
> MercuryBlue

bboyminn:

Let's change perspective here. Imagine that you are married with a
pack of kids of various ages, you live in a functional house -adequate
though a bit small, you have all the basic needs of life- food,
clothing, shelter, and a bit of pocket money, you are an established
family so your house is furnished with life's necessities. 

Keep in mind that the Weasleys aren't 'dirt' poor. They DO have life's
necessities; the eat plenty of food, they are sheltered, and they have
clothes to wear. They get by just fine; no, they are not rich, but
none the less, they get by fine. I would call them 'working class' people.

So, place yourself in that position, then imagine that an 11, 12, 13
year old friend of your son drops by and offers you a pile of money.
Are you really going to take money from a 13 year old boy? I don't
think so. If you wouldn't in the same situation, a proud family like
the Weasleys is certainly not going to do it.

First, a young boy doesn't have the proper perspective on money. Harry
sees his pile of gold as a fortune, but that is from a boy's
perspective. When he becomes an adult and is suddenly paying for food,
housing, clothing, transportation, entertainments, etc... suddenly
that little boy fortune is going to start seeming pretty lean. 

Certainly the Weasleys know and understand this. What is an easily
shared fortune to a little boy, is not going to seem so to a grown
man. Consequently, they could never in good conscience take Harry's
money. 

So, for us as readers, it seems obvious, Harry has money, Ron doesn't;
solution, Harry should give Ron some. But if you look at the details
in  a more realistic way, you'd have to be a pretty greedy and
unscrupulous person to let your family be supported by the underage
friend of your son. 

Further, I suspect there might be legal complications to taking money
from Harry. He IS underage, and therefore not able to make legal
decisions. Certainly any outsider who looked at that circumstance
would see it as the Weasleys taking advantage of a poor innocent boy.

It's a nice sounding idea, but in reality (fictional reality that is)
it is a completely impractice problem frought with complications.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 14 20:57:57 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:57:57 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl7tft+js0j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlatol+mcaj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143032

Jen wrote: 
> 
> That could potentially be a problem though--can Harry release his 
> hatred toward Snape simply finding out he was weak in the face of 
> dark magic? Not likely. Harry, like his father and godfather before 
> him, has no mercy for those entrenched in the dark arts. With no 
> understanding of the temptation, he wouldn't likely look on Snape 
> with much more favorable eyes. 

Potioncat:
Oh the threads and posts that appear when I'm away!

This post has generated a bunch of replies, and a couple of split 
threads. But I wanted to repond to this very small part.

DD says that Hary is pure of heart (sounds ripe for a werewolf bite if 
you ask me) and Jen suggests the Dark Arts have not tempted him. But 
they have! He was ready to use Crucio and even Septumsempra...or is it 
Semprasectum...on Snape. He was enjoying the spells (curses, hexes, 
whatever) that the Prince wrote about. He tried crucio on Bella...and 
whether it worked or not, he was tempted. Before HBP, I thought there 
might be a shady area around Dark Arts and it would easy enough to sort 
of slide into Dark Arts without meaning to.

Now, I have no idea whether this level of temptation will play in the 
Harry/Snape resolution. But Snape was pretty determined to keep Harry 
from casting any of the Dark Spells.
>







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 14 21:56:53 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:56:53 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlahjt+rlmd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlb175+cgjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143033

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Geoff:
> > But you have gone on about this point several times. The plain 
fact 
> is 
> > that they could have refused to take Harry and, at any time 
during 
> > those years, they could have thrown in the towel and put him into 
> care.
> > 
> > I can remember a case some years ago involving one of the young 
> people 
> > in our church group who was orphaned. In a similar scenario to 
> Harry's, 
> > an aunt and uncle took him in - very unwillingly - and did just 
that 
> > after a year or so. They washed their hands of a family relative.

a_svirn:
> Apparently they didn't receive exploding letters when they decided 
to 
> wash their hands of the child. No did his relative life hang upon 
> their decision. 

Geoff:
No, I haven't hear that they did. But neither did they attempt to 
strangle the lad concerned by grabbing him round the neck through an 
open window....

BTW, what is his life relative to?
:-)







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 23:36:06 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlatol+mcaj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051114233606.75927.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143034

CH3ed:
I'm re-reading PoA and just got curious about boggarts and wonder if others can clear things up for me. :O) 
1. Boggarts are shape-shifters (according to Hermione, and Lupin agrees) that take the shape of what you fear the most. But they seem to be able to do what they turn into can do also (tho, perhaps to a milder degree...like immitation instead of real stuff). The dementor-boggart that Harry practiced doing patronus charm against made the light go out and caused Harry to relive LV's attack at GH. So... had Lupin been correct and the first boggart in the staff room turned into LV when it saw Harry, would the LV-boggart be able to do magic?
 
2. What did Moody see when he used his magical eye to check out that boggart in the drawing room cupboard at 12GP for Molly? In PoA Lupin taught that noone knows what a boggart looks like when he is locked up in isolation...He is shapeless until he is seen....or is it until he sees someone? So would Moody had seen an empty cupboard that was shaking? What if you lock up a boggart in a box made of one way mirror so you can see in, but the boggart can't see out? Would that boggart have a shape? 
 
3. Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' cellar? I guess we won't hear any story about it as it doesn't seem significant. I'm just curious of the story behind it.
 
4. And how did Ron know to run breathlessly into Snape's office to tell Snape that the Marauders' Map was a toy he got from Zonko's and bailed Harry out? Harry was caught by Snape just after he cleared the hidden passage. Ron shouldn't have known where Harry went, ay? 
 
CH3ed is hopeless behind the posts. His computer had gone on a winter hybernation without leave. :O(

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Mon Nov 14 23:36:19 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:36:19 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dlakpt+c6pf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlb71j+3kl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143035

> Lucianam:
(snipped almost everything)
> > I'd also like to know why Lupin chose Defense. 
> 
> MercuryBlue:
(snipped)
> Lupin didn't choose squat.
> 
> Dumbledore needed a Defense teacher. More to the point, Dumbledore 
> needed someone who was familiar enough with a certain recently-
> escaped mad mass murderer to be able to predict his moves and plug 
> any holes in the wards that he might be able to use to get at a 
> certain thirteen-year-old. And there was Remus Lupin, old school 
> friend of Black's, knew him very well...also conveniently 
> unemployed. Well, let's solve two problems at once: give Remus the 
> Defense position!

Lucianam:

That's an interesting idea, but I'm under the impression that was 
very unlikely to have happened. I figured, from Dumbledore's answers 
to Snape (when he said he suspected Lupin of helping Black), that he 
regarded Lupin just as any other teacher at Hogwarts. No more 
suspicious, no less. If he didn't see Remus as a possible spy, I 
think he didn't see him as possible help against Black breaking into 
Hogwarts, either. At least I never saw any hints of that in PoA. I 
didn't see Lupin giving Dumbledore any special help.

 
> MercuryBlue also wrote:
(snipped)
> And, had Remus decided on his own to become a 
> teacher, somehow I doubt he would have chosen Defense. He did know 
> he would be chased out of the school the minute it became public 
> knowledge that he was a werewolf, and werewolves are, after all, 
on 
> the Defense curriculum.
 
Lucianam:

But how did Lupin become a DADA teacher if he didn't choose to be 
one? A person doesn't suddenly 'become' a teacher, whatever subject 
they're teaching, they need years of study and preparation. I 
suppose they have to go through examinations, too, so they can prove 
their proficiency. There's a syllabus to be followed, the kids have 
books, there are O.W.L.S. in 5th year... It'd be a very weird 
arrangement if just any person who Dumbledore thought 'useful' at 
Hogwarts, in a given moment (and I don't even agree with this 
particular idea of yours) could teach the students.

Lupin was presented as a capable teacher. He was presented 
as 'professor' since we met him (Professor R.J.Lupin, written in his 
case). I don't see any good reasons to think he didn't study to be 
DADA teacher. Unless you are assuming a wizarding teacher studies 
all subjects, Charms, Transfigurations, etc and they take the job 
they're offered? That'd be reasonable. I wish JKR would explain this 
further. Actually we have Snape's example, he's both a Potions and 
DADA teacher.

All subjects seem a little too much. Maybe Snape was a special case, 
or maybe a teacher will choose two or three subjects he or she likes 
and specialize in them. If that's the case, the fact remains that 
Lupin still is a very, very good DADA teacher, and therefore he must 
have studied the subject very hard. He certainly seemed to like 
teaching it.

Lucianam

Lucianam






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 00:12:51 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:12:51 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl8vip+gjfu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlb963+cc02@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143036

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But not to Snape.  In fact, I'd say Snape and Harry are also    
> > pretty equal when it comes to wrong conclusions reached.
> > <snip>

> >>Lupinlore: 
> Oh my, Betsy! :)  May we take it that you are admitting that Snape 
> has been absolutely in the wrong where Harry is concerned and that 
> you admit he must confess so, however humiliating that will be for 
> him, and be punished for his abuse in order for his character arc 
> to be complete?  Congratulations on achieving enlightenment! <big 
> grin>
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Heh.  No.  Because (and I think you agree with this?) this is 
Harry's story, not Snape's.  So, while Snape may come to realize his 
conclusions about Harry being a miniature James or Sirius are wrong, 
the biggest change will be on Harry's side.  After all, he's the 
character we're following into adulthood.  Snape is the damaged 
adult that Harry must accurately see and/or understand in order to 
avoid becoming exactly like that damaged adult.

It's important, I think, that while Snape sees Harry as an obnoxious 
nincompoop, he doesn't think Harry is evil.  When Snape raises the 
theory that Harry could become the next Dark Lord, he doesn't appear 
to buy it.  IOW, as far as Snape is concerned, Harry is DDM.

On the flip side, I think Harry does accurately read Snape on some 
issues (the Marauders for example, or his relationship with Draco) 
however he is mistaken about his basic loyalties.  If someone 
theorized that Snape was destined to be the next Dark Lord, Harry 
would buy it completely.  So there's a bigger trust issue on Harry's 
side.

I think that can be seen in the Occlumency lessons.  Snape thought 
Harry would be a) too stupid to learn it, and b) too arrogant to 
think he needed it.  Harry thought Snape was too evil (or not loyal 
enough to Dumbledore) to honestly try and teach him the skill.  Both 
came into the lesson with misconceptions that I think were wrong.  
Snape was loyal enough to Dumbledore to try and put forth his best 
effort; Harry is generally not too arrogant or stupid to try and 
learn something.  However, because of their misconceptions, the 
lessons were a fiasco.  And it's interesting that Harry's lack of 
trust is what lead to the premature ending of the lessons. 

Both characters need to change their perception of the other.  
However, Harry's need to change is far more vital than Snape's.  I 
*hope* Snape's view changes and he reaches some sort of 
understanding with Harry and Lupin (and therefore with his past).  
But that change isn't really necessary for Harry's part in the 
tale.  Snape could die still thinking Harry an idiot and that won't 
really effect where Harry ends up.

Betsy Hp (who snipped the rest of Lupinlore's post because she 
agrees with both Julie's and Magpie's responses)






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 00:19:00 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:19:00 -0000
Subject: Uncle Horace - Former Honeydukes Staff?
Message-ID: <dlb9hk+ogjs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143037

Just a short observation regarding Horace Slughorn.

Perhaps as usual I am reading too much into it but I think we met 
Horace briefly prior to Chapter Four of HBP. My reference is the 
following quotation from POA (Chapter Ten - The Marauder's Map, p. 146 
Bloomsbury paperback edition):

- 
he saw an enormous backside and a shiny bald head buried in a box. 
(This assistant was sent to get Jelly Slugs)

Part of Horace's mysyterious past, or simply did he want to be close 
to the crystallised pineapple?

Goddlefrood








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 00:42:30 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:42:30 -0000
Subject: The... minor characters in Book 7 - Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dlb71j+3kl6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlbatm+37p6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143038

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...>
wrote:
>
> > Lucianam:
> (snipped almost everything)
> > > I'd also like to know why Lupin chose Defense. 

 
> > MercuryBlue:
> (snipped)
> > Lupin didn't choose squat.
> > 
> > Dumbledore needed a Defense teacher. More to the point, 
> > Dumbledore needed someone who was familiar enough with 
> > [Sirius] to be able to predict his moves and plug any holes
> > in the wards ...

> Lucianam:
> 
> ...I'm under the impression that was very unlikely to have 
> happened. I figured, from Dumbledore's answers to Snape ..., 
> that he regarded Lupin just as any other teacher at Hogwarts. 
> No more suspicious, no less. ...

bboyminn:

First, we must remember that Defense Against Dark Arts teachers are
NOT readily available. That given, I think under the unique
circumstances of PoA, there was some advantage in convincing Lupin to
take the position. First, Lupin REALLY needed the job. Second, there
was certainly some advantage in Lupin being around with Sirius Black
on the loose. This advantage could appear in a variety of ways; for
example, if the got into a confrontation with Black, Lupin might have
been able to prevail on their friendship to reason with him. Or
Lupin's inside intimate knowledge of Black might have given him some
advantage in a duel, or in tracking Black down or predicting his
moves. Third, it would be a chance for Lupin to get to know Harry. The
list is not an attempt to define Dumbledore's action, just give a
sample of perfectly reasonable and logical motivations. 


>  
> Lucianam:
> 
> But how did Lupin become a DADA teacher if he didn't choose to
> be one? A person doesn't suddenly 'become' a teacher, whatever 
> subject they're teaching, they need years of study and preparation. 
> ... It'd be a very weird arrangement if just any person who 
> Dumbledore thought 'useful' at Hogwarts, in a given moment ... 
> could teach the students.
> 
> Lupin was presented as a capable teacher. He was presented 
> as 'professor' since we met him (Professor R.J.Lupin, written in his 
> case). I don't see any good reasons to think he didn't study to be 
> DADA teacher. ...
> 
> Lucianam


bboyminn:

I have my own wholly unfounded but reasonably logical speculations
about Lupin and his apparent vast bank of knowledge. This stems from a
past discussion about After-Hogwarts schooling and academic
accreditation in the wizard world.

In that past discussion, I speculated that private organizations like
the [I made it up] International Fraternal Oder of Wizards have
Academic Review Committees. Although, they aren't the only review
committee. Perhaps the International Confederation of Wizards has one.
Perhaps even individual governments have their own. Any witch or
wizard wanting to improve and accreditation their academic standing
must do independant research, submit papers, and make a presentation
to one of the academic review committees. The committee of [alledged]
experts review the information, judge it's merit, and if sufficient,
bestows academic titles on said witch or wizard. 

In a sense, that's all universities were in the beginning; a bunch of
so called experts that you had to satisfy to become a 'Professor' or
'Doctor'. 

Now we've come full circle to Lupin. I have a theory [unfounded] that
Lupin's mother was very level-headed and very intelligent. When Lupin
was bitten, his standard course of academics seem very much
threatened. It was very unlikely that he would be allowed to go to
school with other kids. So, she encourage him to study hard on his
own, to put his time to a productive and useful purpose rather that
moping about feeling sorry for himself. 

Luckly, Lupin was allowed to attend Hogwarts. But after Hogwarts his
job prospects were extremely limited. Again, his mother encouraged him
to keep studying, to keep growing and learning, to keep bettering
himself. He thought he would never go to school, but he did. Now as an
adult, he thinks he can never amount to anything, but his mother
points out that the moment doesn't dictate the future. Just as his
school status changed, so to could his future adult status. It was up
to him, Lupin, to make the most of his time and his life.

So, he studied hard, he read books, he researched magic, he wrote
papers and made presentations, and he achieve the designated rank of
'Professor' [professoriate]. If he continues to study, someday he may
obtain the rank of 'Doctor'[doctorate].

It's a glum and lonely life with nothing but books and perhaps a
hinkypunk or grindylow for company, but it's more productive than
going the 'Fenrir Greyback' route.

So there you have it, my totally unfounded theory on Lupin's status
and vast bank of knowledge in the wizard world.

To the central point, I can see several logical reasons why it might
be advantageous for Dumbledore to have Lupin on his staff during that
particular year.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 01:08:08 2005
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:08:08 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dlb71j+3kl6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlbcdo+kuki@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143039

Lucianam wrote:
 I'd also like to know why Lupin chose Defense. 

Lyra (chiming in late, as usual):

You'll notice that what Lupin seems to concentrate on is the subset 
of DADA that focuses on defense against dark creatures. Once a 
month, Lupin himself is a dark creature, as the result of meeting up 
with a dark creature as a child. It makes sense to me, and seems 
perfectly in character for Remus Lupin, that Lupin would become a 
DADA teacher so that he could train others to avoid his own fate. 
It's also possible, that like his friends James and Sirius, 
he "hated the dark arts" and therefore chose to study how to defend 
against them (as opposed to Snape, whose attraction to the dark arts 
finds some sort of satisfaction in teaching defense against those 
same dark arts...) 



> > 
> > MercuryBlue wrote:
> (snipped)
> > Lupin didn't choose squat.
> > Dumbledore needed a Defense teacher. More to the point, 
Dumbledore 
> > needed someone who was familiar enough with a certain recently-
> > escaped mad mass murderer [snip]toAnd there was Remus Lupin, old 
school 
> > friend of Black's, knew him very well...also conveniently 
> > unemployed. Well, let's solve two problems at once: give Remus 
the 
> > Defense position!
> 
> Lucianam responded:
> 
>> Lucianam:
> 
>.But how did Lupin become a DADA teacher if he didn't choose to be
one? A person doesn't suddenly 'become' a teacher, whatever subject
they're teaching, they need years of study and preparation. I
suppose they have to go through examinations, too, so they can prove
their proficiency. There's a syllabus to be followed, the kids have
books, there are O.W.L.S. in 5th year... .. It'd be a very weird 
> arrangement if just any person who Dumbledore thought 'useful' at 
> Hogwarts, in a given moment (and I don't even agree with this 
> particular idea of yours) could teach the students.
> Lupin still is a very, very good DADA teacher, and therefore he 
must 
> have studied the subject very hard. He certainly seemed to like 
> teaching it.
> 
Lyra responds:

Lupin does seem like a very capable teacher -- one of the best 
teachers we've seen in six years of attending Hogwarts, actually. 
But I don't think it's a coincidence that Dumbledore decided to 
recruit him for this particular year. After all, Dumbledore needs a 
DADA teacher *every* year, and since Lupin seems among the most 
qualified of all, why would he wait for this particular year to hire 
him? This year he offered the added bonus of the link to Sirius 
Black.

But I think your premise that it takes years of training to become a 
teacher -- while valid for the real world -- is simply not the case 
in the WW. Consider Hagrid. Not only has he not had years of 
training to be a teacher, he didn't even complete his studies at 
Hogwarts. The vast majority of what he knows about COMC comes from 
experience working with the animals, not book learning. In fact, if 
the curriculum at Hogwarts hasn't changed much in the last 50 years, 
Hagrid only had a year of COMC classes before he was expelled due to 
Tom Riddle's accusations. Based on the Hagrid example, expertise is a
key consideration, teacher credentials are not.

When it comes to filling the DADA position, however, Dumbledore is 
in a much tougher situation, because he has to fill the position 
*every* year, and apparently people with expertise in the field are 
either getting harder to find or not interested in the job. That's 
why charlatans like Lockhart are sometimes his only choice (unless 
he decides this is the year Snape gets his chance). And since 
Dumbledore knows he will need a new DADA instructor each year, he 
can reserve old chums like Moody to be on campus during a year he 
has reason to believe will be one where a little extra security 
might be needed. He knows during the TriWizard Tournament his castle 
will play host to a school that specializes in dark magic with a 
headmaster who is an admitted former DE, so he chooses a DADA 
teacher who will (in theory, anyway) provide an additional layer of 
protection.

Lyra







From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 03:31:48 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:31:48 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <20051114233606.75927.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dlbkr4+sfbd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143040

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M. Thitathan" <h2so3f at y...> 
wrote:
> 1. Boggarts are shape-shifters (snip)So... had Lupin been correct 
and the first boggart in the staff room turned into LV when it saw 
Harry, would the LV-boggart be able to do magic?

Goddlefrood:

Quite possible. The Snape Boggart that originally approached Neville 
when it was his turn was reaching to his pocket (with the 
implication that he was about to draw his wand). Whether the Boggart 
takes on exactly the same abilities as well as qualities of the 
thing / person impersonated is a moot point. Harry does not appear, 
IMHO, to suffer as badly from the Boggart Dementor as he does from 
the real thing so why not postulate that a Boggart can do magic, but 
without perhaps the same intensity as the real witch / wizard.

Additionally when the *kids* are being taught by Mad-Eye he does say 
that they would be unlikely to give him so much as a nose bleed if 
they all cast AK together. This may also apply to creatures such as 
Boggarts in that their magical power is rather limited and would 
have no real effect on a witch / wizard even if it did cast the 
spell.

The other thing to remember is that the Boggart takes on the 
abilities of the witch / wizard that the person who faces the 
Boggart perceives that witch / wizard to possess, thus leading to 
the possible conclusion that a Boggart could be quite powerful if 
perceived as being so by its viewer. So many points to ponder...

> CH3ed
> 2. What did Moody see when he used his magical eye to check out 
that boggart in the drawing room cupboard at 12GP for Molly?

Goddlefrood:

This is a candidate for being a Flint. The only viable alternative 
is that the Boggart is so sensitive that it knows when it is being 
watched, even if that is through several walls and a piece of wood, 
and thus changes immediately into the viewer's worst fear. That is a 
bit of a stretch, but at the moment I have no reasonable alternative.

> CH3ed
> 3. Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' 
cellar?

Goddlefrood:

Perhaps it was made in Slughorn's time so that he might have easier 
access to crystallised Pineapple. The other passages, and from 
memory there are seven, have no real explanation to them either. 
That is except for the one to the Shrieking Shack. The one that 
collapsed around winter of Harry's second year (as informed by Fred 
and George when handing him the Marauder's Map) may have collapsed 
due to Basilisk activity. No other passages have so far been 
seen...or have they?

> CH3ed
> 4. And how did Ron know to run breathlessly into Snape's office to 
tell Snape that the Marauders' Map was a toy he got from Zonko's and 
bailed Harry out?

Goddlefrood:

Another Flint? Or Ron is brighter than we have been giving him 
credit and put two and two together when he diod not find Harry 
where he expected him to be upon return from Hogsmeade. Oh yeah, Ron 
is brighter than we have been led to believe.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 04:05:31 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:05:31 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <20051114233606.75927.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dlbmqb+tb52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143041

> >>CH3ed:
> <snip of boggart questions 'cause this is where I usually shrug    
> and say "it's magic?">   
> 3. Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes'      
> cellar? I guess we won't hear any story about it as it doesn't     
> seem significant. I'm just curious of the story behind it.

Betsy Hp:
Since Hogwarts was founded during a time when Muggles were 
persecuting wizards and witches, and it was put (I think 
deliberately, IIRC) in a very out-of-the-way place, and it was built 
as a fortress type castle rather than a princess type castle (can 
actually be locked down in times of trouble), I always liked to 
think that the various secret passages have to do with siege 
escapes.  

That the tunnel leads into the town of Hogsmeade, into a cellar that 
could easily pre-date the building sitting on top of it, makes me 
think it was specifically built for students to escape if the castle 
was ever compromised.  And the tunnel is a secret because for the 
castle to be compromised would require a betrayal from inside.  
Which makes me think it was probably placed there by Slytherin, 
which is why current staff know nothing about it.

No canon of course, but it sounds good, yeah? <g>

> >>CH3ed: 
> 4. And how did Ron know to run breathlessly into Snape's office to 
> tell Snape that the Marauders' Map was a toy he got from Zonko's   
> and bailed Harry out? Harry was caught by Snape just after he     
> cleared the hidden passage. Ron shouldn't have known where Harry   
> went, ay? 

Betsy Hp:
Because Ron's not an idiot and he and Harry and Hermione knew that 
when Draco went running back to the castle to report the illegal 
presence of Harry's head in Hogsmeade the person he'd report it to 
would be Snape.  And since Ron had been a student under Snape for 
three years by this time, I'm sure he realized that Harry's pockets 
would be turned out and the map taken.  He did have some time to 
figure a story out while racing from Hogsmeade to Hogwarts.  And he 
is a son of Molly Weasley so I'm sure he's pretty good liar when he 
needs to be.  Not to mention living all of his life under the 
Weasley twins who are probably masters at the art of talking their 
way out of trouble.  At least, IMO.  (Now if it'd been *Hermione* 
coming up with all that, I'd have raised an eyebrow.  No way an only 
child could come up with that sort of story under that sort of 
pressure.  No way.)

Betsy Hp







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 04:12:38 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:12:38 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dl8qbr+ja5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlbn7m+hf4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143042

This thread is moving very fast and is getting a little more emotional
than I'm comfortable with, but I'd just like to clear up a couple of
misconceptions about story structure..


> Lupinlore:
> Well, he's a child abuser.  What's not to hate?

I think 'child abuser' is a very strong and loaded term, but that
aside-- Darth Vader blew up entire planets, but his role in the story
still demanded a reconciliation with Luke.  


> in that it's "about" something very clear at all (an I'm not sure it 
> is).
> 
> As for classical story structure, so much of that has been driven 
> into the ground a la Joseph Campbell that it is not only no longer 
> interesting and effective, 

'Classical structure' is a bit of a seperate subject from the
mythological themes that Cambell analyzed, although JKR has so far
followed both very closely.  By 'classical', it's meant REALLY
classical, as in Aristotle -- what we call a 'reversal' he called the
'peripatea', the point at which relationships between characters'turn
on the wheel'.  To this he added the concept of 'recognition', the
movement within a character "from ignorance to knowledge, producing
love or hate".  These two concepts are the basis of western drama and
you can expect to find them in anything from a commercial to a movie
to a novel, unless the writer has actively decided to discard it.  As
the man said:

"If an enemy kills an enemy, there is nothing to excite pity either in
the act or the intention- except so far as the suffering in itself is
pitiful. So again with indifferent persons. But when the tragic
incident occurs between those who are near or dear to one another- if,
for example, a brother kills, or intends to kill, a brother, a son his
father, a mother her son, a son his mother, or any other deed of the
kind is done- these are the situations to be looked for by the poet"

This is from the Poetics, which is only about tragedies, and as I
don't think the HP series is a tragedy, I would say the reversal is
more likely to be the glimpse he gives us of a comic structure: 

"It is proper rather to Comedy, where those who, in the piece, are the
deadliest enemies- like Orestes and Aegisthus- quit the stage as
friends at the close, and no one slays or is slain." 

Now before you throw up, I certainly don't think it's necessary of
even likely that Snape and Harry quit the stage as best of friends;
only that their relationship undergoes a reversal from negative to
positive.  As to what kind of reversal, Aristotle once again:

"The best form of recognition is coincident with a Reversal of the
Situation, as in the Oedipus....Again, we may recognize or discover
whether a person has done a thing or not. But the recognition which is
most intimately connected with the plot and action is, as we have
said, the recognition of persons. ... Recognition, then, being between
persons, it may happen that one person only is recognized by the
other- when the latter is already known- or it may be necessary that
the recognition should be on both sides." 

Of all the relationships in HP, the one that has been most
consistently, and INsistently, set up for this convergence of reversal
and recognition, is Harry's with Snape.  The element of 'recognition'
I think will prove vital, simply because we've had 5 books worth of
setup on Harry misunderstanding, or failing to 're-cognize' Snape.
Your option of Harry 'recognizing' that Snape is pathetic or childish
or dark, is not exactly a revelation for Harry.  The ending may
certainly also involve a 'recognition' from Snape that Harry is a
great kid, but I could go either way as to whether it will happen, not
because I want or don't want it to happen ( I do) but because I don't
get enough of a feeling as to whether JKR has hung that gun on the wall.

Joseph Campbell is something else again, and would be a much longer
post, but for heaven's sake, this is a series about an orphan of
improbably pure heart abandoned with evil stepparents and destined to
defeat an evil wizard and mentored to that end by a wise old man, all
of which is wrapped up in Feudian and Jungian symbolism.  Whatever you
think about Campbell (and I feel the same way about story-guru Robert
McKee), I would consider it strange not to use him as a reliable
predictor of future events.

> Lupinlore:
> Well, it's clear that this is what you WANT to have been set up for 
> some reason.  If that's what floats your boat <shrug>.  All of this 
> is unavoidably subjective.

I'll cheerfully admit to being a Snape fan, but I also have to go to a
 lot of meetings where I have to at least make a pretense of clinical
objectivity :).  I'm LOOKING FORWARD to it, but I'm also pretty
confident that this is where the story is leading.  I'm not crazy
about Harry/Ginny, but I'm also pretty confident about where THAT is
leading. 

 
>   That is she gives us a storyline that emphasizes 
> a DDM!Snape of some sort who undergoes some kind of karmic 
> retribution for his treatment of Harry with elements of forgiveness 
> and empowerment for Harry thrown in along with an important role for 
> Snape in the defeat of Voldemort.  

Weirdly, we DO agree on the probable outcome of the story, so I'm not
sure what we're agruging about now!  
> 
> To tell the truth, I think this is one of the reasons I think Grey!
> Snape is very likely.  I don't think it would be the best way to 
> resolve the storyline, but I think it will make a very attractive 
> option for JKR.  In this way she gives something to the widest 
> possible swathe of her readership, as well as spreading the annoyance 
> and disappointment pretty evenly across the spectrum.  

I disagree here, in that this isn't a television series with a
committee of ratings watchers and a rotating panel of writers.  It's
pretty plain to me that this has been a meticulously planned narritive
down to tiny details.  She may be throwing in the occasional gag for
insiders or giving a little more screen-time for some things, but
she's not going to throw away all her groundwork for vague 'reader
demands', or what a bunch of kooks like us write on the internet!

-- Sydney







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 05:38:01 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:38:01 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dladfb+bhhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlbs7p+rsqe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143043

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at a...> 
wrote:

> Magpie:

<snip>

> (And as Sydney correctly pointed out, the scene in the Tower is 
> designed so that we don't see a moment where Dumbledore realizes 
> he's been wrong.)  

Actually, that is precisely what I find the whole pleading scene to 
be.

"The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all 
evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading."

There's your tragic anagnorisis right there (also argued for in post 
142981), just in the terse style which JKR likes.  [It's also 
interesting that this happens right as Snape enters the scene, which 
means some switch--positive or negative--goes off immediately.]  
Mercifully, she forgoes the fanfiction option of laying everything 
out on the table and telling us what everyone in the room thinks.  
Results in far more arguments about what actually happened, but is 
far better literature. :)

> Magpie:
> 
> Harry's right a lot. 

Except about Snape, of course.  The plot is often driven by him being 
mistaken or lacking in knowledge about something, with revelations 
coming at the end of the novel (often rendering our hero fairly 
passive as the one being enlightened).  One could argue that this is 
now the standard for the books and will continue; but it's just as 
viable to note that the structure of the novels has been fraying in 
terms of its regularity, exceptional events have happened, etc.  I'd 
almost argue that it's *more* unrealistic to expect the pattern to 
keep going, especially given an author who I'd class as sentimental 
as opposed to naive.  She's aware of the genre conventions and thus 
may choose to follow or tweak them at will.

<snip>

> In chapter two of the sixth book of a seven book series we're just 
> told okay, here's the real deal with Snape, so think of him this 
> way from now on.  It won't be a surprise for you when he kills 
> Dumbledore, because here he is swearing to do so. 

Except that it's done in a way that provides maximal opportunities 
for fans to pull out the 'spy' and 'pretending' excuses--which is a 
lot of what generates the interesting frission in reading the novel.  
We get an eagle's eye view, except even then we're unsure.

> It seems to come down to whether the tension about trusting Snape 
> was an important part of the story or just a distraction to keep 
> Harry busy until he got out of school.  

I find the tension to be integral to the experience of reading the 
books, even if it's ultimately more peripheral to the plot than most 
of us might have predicted.

> Perhaps an editor should have made sure in the end we all knew what 
> everyone knew when.

That would take most of the fun out of it, though.  It rockets us 
into fanfictionland, where authors are happy to write out detailed 
accounts of events and then have endless scenes (usually in the 
Headmaster's Office and involving drinks, as a way to get the entire 
cast of characters as audience in there) then explaining to us what 
everyone has been doing and why they've been doing it.

-Nora feels for everyone reading the series first after book 7 who 
will most likely have it all totally spoiled for them before they 
start






From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Tue Nov 15 07:10:12 2005
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:10:12 -0000
Subject: Obviously Petunia? (Was: Retrospective -- Snape's Worst Memory)
Message-ID: <dlc1kk+5h5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143044


truthbeauty1 <rh64643 at appstate.edu> wrote:

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" <rdsilverstein at y...>
wrote:
>(snip)

> It would also be a nice parallel if the magic Petunia performs is in 
> the Battle of Privet Drive to protect her son.
> 
> Hpfan_mom
>
I completely agree. The only way I can see Petunia using magic is in
defense of her family.(or her clean kitchen haha)I can really see some
dementors or deatheaters coming at Dudders and Petunia going "Carrie"
on their butts. I wonder how Vernon will react?

Deborah, now:

I'm not so sure! Yes, it does make a certain sense that a little of
the magical potential that Lily showed should also lurk in Petunia's
bony bosom, but isn't it a bit bland, frankly? The plot device, not
the bosom.

My bet has long been - and now emerges confidently from the closet for
the first time - that our late-magicker is none other than Vernon.

Consider Petunia's love-hate relationship with Lily. Apparently they
got on just fine until their parents blew it by favouring magic Lil
over nonmagic Pet. What is magic, if not a way of controlling the
otherwise uncontrollable? And Pet is a control freak of note. She is
also abnormally inquisitive, even by bored-suburban-housewife
standards. If there is anything to know, she'll know it. If there is
anything to recognise, she'll spot it from afar.

Now consider Vernon. Not a man to whom one instinctively warms; but
his one redeeming feature seems to be his love for Petunia, based on
the fact that she actually runs the show. When the chips are down,
Vernon tells Harry to, of all things, listen to his aunt. Pet is in
control. And wouldn't she just love being in control of someone with
latent magical abilities? A subtle revenge on Sister Dear, and as long
as Dudders didn't inherit the dubious talent she would have won all
the way. (Perhaps the spoiling of Dudders was intended to make or keep
him passive, dependent, and lacking in initiative and enterprise?)

Vernon also loves his son, and is proud of him. Kinky, but what can
you expect? So, if anything is going to stimulate his latent talent,
real or perceived danger to Ickle Diddykins would do it; and now he
knows about Dementors for instance. The last time they showed up, he
was absent and wouldn't have understood anyway. The Battle of Privet
Drive, if it happens, might just show Pet a thing or two about her
semi-detached, suburban Mr Most; and if Harry is a fascinated
observer, so much the better.

You heard it here first!

Deborah, dusting her manicure modestly on her lapel and trying to
remember the rest of that darn Sixties song; wondering also how to go
"Carrie" on someone's butt. One feels so foreign sometimes ...







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Tue Nov 15 08:04:59 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:04:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
Message-ID: <20051115080459.50589.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143045

lupinlore wrote:

> Sydney  wrote:
>
>> LOL!  Wow, you really hate this character!  
>
>
>
>
> Lupinlore:
> Well, he's a child abuser.  What's not to hate?


You know,  you should prepare for a massive
disappointment. :-)
If JKR punishes Snape in any way close to what you
anticipate, it will be for murdering Dumbledore, for
his role in the deaths of Potters or maybe Sirius,
possibly for some yet undisclosed things, but his
teaching methods won't be on of them, I'm ready to bet
the farm on it.
 She's upped the ante in book 6, the game is very
different now. All our arguments about what kind of
teacher Snape is are so passe. :-)

Irene



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 15 13:48:21 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:48:21 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlbs7p+rsqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcov5+2083@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143046

> 
> > Magpie:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > (And as Sydney correctly pointed out, the scene in the Tower is 
> > designed so that we don't see a moment where Dumbledore realizes 
> > he's been wrong.)  

Nora: 
> Actually, that is precisely what I find the whole pleading scene to 
> be.
> 
> "The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all 
> evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading."
> 
> There's your tragic anagnorisis right there (also argued for in post 
> 142981), just in the terse style which JKR likes.  [It's also 
> interesting that this happens right as Snape enters the scene, which 
> means some switch--positive or negative--goes off immediately.]  

Pippin:
Um, so now Dumbledore and Snape have exchanged some instant silent
communication? Isn't that a new thought for you?
 Because as you say at this point Snape has not yet come forward or
donned his look of revulsion and hatred. How exactly is it that Dumbledore
realized he was wrong? 

Pippin






From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Nov 15 04:36:35 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:36:35 -0500
Subject: [POSSIBLE SPAM] [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 6627
In-Reply-To: <1131941879.2276.77838.m8@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAnZsM+pcVI0OI4rp6encnwgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143047

Anent writing: 

bboyminn wrote:

>>>I'm reminded of what a Supreme Court Judge once said about
pornography, (paraphrased) I can't define it, but I know it when I see
it. First of all, the measure of good writing is the tedium and
struggle that the author puts the reader through. I am simply not
going to wade through pages of 'bad writing' on the off change that
there might be a good story there. That exactly why I don't read
Shakespeare. I know the story is good, but I simply can't wade through
the tedious and difficult dialog. 

Which brings to to an important point and back to 'Ulysses'; what are
the odds that Shakespeare or 'Ulysses' could get published today? I
would say ZERO. Great as Shakespeare's his work might be, it is simply
out of touch with modern day writing and reading.<<<

Bruce:
Shakespeare's works are not meant to be read; they are meant to be heard.  Many scenes which are hard to understand when one is reading them make much more sense when one sees them on the stage.

Shakespeare--and, to a lesser extent Joyce--were men of their times.  Were they alive today, they would have been shaped by today's culture, and would be writing for today's reader.


Anent the Dursleys:

Valky wrote:

>>>In simple terms three facts:
Harry *IS* a Wizard 
His affairs are Wizard Affairs 
The Dursleys took him in and meddled in his affairs.

Hence The Dursleys took wizard affairs into their home and meddled
with them to suit their purposes. It all very simply comes down to
their own stubborn stupidity and hypocrisy doesn't it.<<<


Bruce:
I am reminded of a quote from JRRT: "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."  But I don't imagine that either Vernon or Petunia have ever read LOTR.  It, perhaps, would have been good for them if they had, and not just for this quote.

Bruce







From hg_skmg at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 13:19:57 2005
From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:19:57 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlbkr4+sfbd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcn9t+qm5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143048

CH3ed:
> > Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' 
> > cellar?
 
Goddlefrood:
> Perhaps it was made in Slughorn's time so that he might have easier 
> access to crystallised Pineapple. The other passages, and from 
> memory there are seven, have no real explanation to them either. 
> That is except for the one to the Shrieking Shack. The one that 
> collapsed around winter of Harry's second year (as informed by Fred 
> and George when handing him the Marauder's Map) may have collapsed 
> due to Basilisk activity. No other passages have so far been 
> seen...or have they?


hg: 
I have speculated, I think on this forum (?), that Riddle found that 
passageway and used it for the very purpose of getting crystallised 
pineapple for Slughorn (and perhaps other purposes?) -- he didn't 
have any money, yet it seemed he was making quite a habit of these 
gifts to the Potionsmaster.

It's probably the "other purposes" that would yield a pretty 
interesting discussion.

hg.








From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 13:56:08 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:56:08 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlcov5+2083@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcpdo+t2ms@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143049

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> Um, so now Dumbledore and Snape have exchanged some instant silent
> communication? Isn't that a new thought for you?
> Because as you say at this point Snape has not yet come forward or
> donned his look of revulsion and hatred. How exactly is it that 
> Dumbledore realized he was wrong? 

Not silent communication, no; it's just interesting that Dumbledore 
reacts with 'pleading' as soon as Snape walks into the room, wand in 
hand, looking around at everyone else.  Something is firing in 
Dumbledore's mind at once, and whatever it is, Harry's rather dismayed 
by it because it's exceptional.  Dumbledore's tone doesn't change, but 
then you get the highly elliptical "Severus...please..."

Ahem.  No silent communication (implying reciprocality) needed.  Just 
recognition, which can be fairly sudden, that things have gone not as 
he expected them to...

-Nora must be losing her precision of argument or something...






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 15 14:32:40 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:32:40 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl9mmv+kfqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcri8+f0a8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143050

> > Julie:
> > *Yawn* As you feel about Joseph Campbell constructs, I feel about 
> > idiot adults in children's stories. 

Lupinlore:
> You must have been yawning quite a lot through the last six books, 
> then.  A bigger bunch of incompetents, idiots, blind fools, and 
> magical morons has never been assembled than the adults in the Potter 
> books.

Pippin:
Trouble is, Harry is going to be one of those adults for most of the next
book, unless it all takes place in the few weeks before Harry's next birthday.
The stage is set for Harry to have a sped-up version of an experience like 
the one related by Mark Twain, about the youngster who left home at eighteen 
and returned at twenty-one. It was amazing how much his old man had 
learned in three years. <g>

In other words,  when Harry himself has to make adult choices, he may find 
that the vision, freedom and power he thought he would
enjoy as an adult are more limited than he ever imagined, and that much 
of what he thought was incompetence and even malice will turn out to have 
been people doing the best they could in some pretty ugly circumstances.  

We had some foreshadowing of this when Harry tried to write that letter
to Sirius in OOP and discovered  he'd been expecting rather a lot 
of Ron and Hermione.

This is a series in which childhood, but especially perpetual childhood, is
not seen as an admirable state. We see over and over again that childish
judgement is by definition poor.   I would not expect Harry's childish 
judgement of Snape to be validated.

Lupinlore:
   In order to accomplish this, I think it means that pretty 
much all of the clues to Snape have to mean something.  Unlike a 
murder mystery, I don't think you can afford red herrings that lead 
nowhere.

Pippin:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. In a "fair" murder mystery, red
herrings *must* lead somewhere, ie, they must be explained. JKR
has gone out of her way to establish that she is abiding by this
convention, even going so far as to correct her readers offpage when
their speculations go haring off spurred by something she
didn't mean to suggest; that Mark Evans is an important character,
for example.

If each action of Snape is sincerely meant, and marks a twist in his path,
then there is no blanket explanation for them and  JKR  will either have to 
revisit each one to tell us what Snape was doing and why, or leave us in 
the dark. While some readers might enjoy a Snape debate that went on
for ever, that would leave Snape as the books' most intriguing character.
It is Harry who is supposed to be interesting.

 Evil!Snape or DDM!Snape is a lot simpler and covered by the explanation
we've already been given: Snape is a good actor and whenever he needs
to, he can pretend. 

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 15 14:44:04 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:44:04 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlcpdo+t2ms@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcs7k+i1eo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143051

 
> > Pippin:
> > Um, so now Dumbledore and Snape have exchanged some instant silent
> > communication? Isn't that a new thought for you?
> > Because as you say at this point Snape has not yet come forward or
> > donned his look of revulsion and hatred. How exactly is it that 
> > Dumbledore realized he was wrong? 

Nora:
> Not silent communication, no; it's just interesting that Dumbledore 
> reacts with 'pleading' as soon as Snape walks into the room, wand in 
> hand, looking around at everyone else.  Something is firing in 
> Dumbledore's mind at once, and whatever it is, Harry's rather dismayed 
> by it because it's exceptional.  Dumbledore's tone doesn't change, but 
> then you get the highly elliptical "Severus...please..."
> 
> Ahem.  No silent communication (implying reciprocality) needed.  Just 
> recognition, which can be fairly sudden, that things have gone not as 
> he expected them to...

Pippin:
Okayyy, but if we allow  Dumbledore to instantly and silently grasp Snape's 
intentions, from the context or something,  even if they're radically different 
than what he expected  (otherwise there's no reversal) why is it that 
Snape couldn't have instantly grasped Dumbledore's, which aren't even silent? 

Why would Dumbledore make such a highly,  literally elliptic plea
if he didn't expect to be understood?

Pippin






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 14:45:14 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:45:14 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlbmqb+tb52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcs9q+82d0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143052

 
> Betsy Hp:
> Since Hogwarts was founded during a time when Muggles were 
> persecuting wizards and witches, 

a_svirn:
I beg to differ. Hogwarts was founded in the pre-conquest time when 
muggles and wizards lived together in harmony. Witch-hunts started a 
couple of centuries later. And we don't really know who hunted whom. 
After all for real witches, like Wandeline the Weird burnings were 
more like a joke than a real ordeal. 


> Betsy Hp:
and it was put (I think 
> deliberately, IIRC) in a very out-of-the-way place, and it was 
built 
> as a fortress type castle rather than a princess type castle 

a_svirn:
"Princess type castle"? Would you mind explain the term? 

> Betsy Hp:
(can 
> actually be locked down in times of trouble), I always liked to 
> think that the various secret passages have to do with siege 
> escapes.  

a_svirn:
Ah, but that particular phenomenon was explained in GoF:

"There's traditionally been a lot of rivalry between all the magic 
schools.  Durmstrang and Beauxbatons like to conceal their where-
abouts so nobody can steal their secrets," said Hermione matter-of--
factly."

 Sounds like wizards were more afraid of their own kind. Not 
surprising, really.








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Nov 15 14:46:57 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:46:57 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlcpdo+t2ms@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcsd1+qj4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143053


> 
> Not silent communication, no; it's just interesting that Dumbledore 
> reacts with 'pleading' as soon as Snape walks into the room, wand 
in 
> hand, looking around at everyone else.  Something is firing in 
> Dumbledore's mind at once, and whatever it is, Harry's rather 
dismayed 
> by it because it's exceptional.  Dumbledore's tone doesn't change, 
but 
> then you get the highly elliptical "Severus...please..."
> 
> Ahem.  No silent communication (implying reciprocality) needed.  
Just 
> recognition, which can be fairly sudden, that things have gone not 
as 
> he expected them to...
> 
> -Nora must be losing her precision of argument or something...


With all this talk about Snape, I always remember one quote from JKR 
way back in 2000.

Q. 'Why did you make Quirrell the bad guy instead of Snape?' 

JKR. 'Because I know all about Snape, and he wasn't about to put on a 
turban.' 

For me, this has always been fairly solid proof that whatever Snape 
may be, he is definitely AGAINST Voldemort.

As to the current topic of discussion, I will add my thoughts!!

On seeing the Dark Mark over his school, DD INSISTS that Harry only 
fetch Snape. WHY? Surely you would want all hands alerted and on deck 
to face this unknown threat. Unless it is not an unknown threat! 
IMO DD knows that he is the intended target (his conversation with 
Draco suggests this), and that his life may be in danger. 

Snape, on finding that DE's are in the school, goes rushing straight 
for the tower. Why? Draco has kept him completely in the dark! These 
are not the actions of a man confused about the turn of events. Is it 
because Snape & DD have planned the tower as the rendezvous point?

Why does DD insist that Harry only fetches Snape? Is is because he 
needs Snape to carry out a preordained task, without interference 
from any teachers/order members!!

DD freezes Harry. WHY??? DD is more than capable of handling any 
problem that comes up those steps, without Harry needing to be 
involved or get hurt. Doesn't it seem that DD wants Harry to bare 
witness, but not be able to get involved.

IMO, there is no silent communication between DD and Snape. DD and 
Snape had discussed the impending attack by Draco. They knew that 
DD's health was failing and DD was coercing Snape into performing the 
AK when necessary. Some sort of plan was definitely in place.

As for book 7 - I think Snape will have a key role to play in the 
downfall of Voldemort, but if he survives, he will remain the 
unpleasant individual he always has been. I think the Voldemort issue 
is personal to Snape, which is why DD trusts him, but Snape still has 
a huge chip on his shoulder regarding how his life turned out!!

IMO, of course.

Brothergib










From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 15 15:17:57 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:17:57 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlbs7p+rsqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlcu75+5tnr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143054

> > Magpie:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > (And as Sydney correctly pointed out, the scene in the Tower is 
> > designed so that we don't see a moment where Dumbledore realizes 
> > he's been wrong.)  

Nora:
> 
> Actually, that is precisely what I find the whole pleading scene 
to 
> be.
> 
> "The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all 
> evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading."
> 
> There's your tragic anagnorisis right there (also argued for in 
post 
> 142981), just in the terse style which JKR likes.  [It's also 
> interesting that this happens right as Snape enters the scene, 
which 
> means some switch--positive or negative--goes off immediately.]  
> Mercifully, she forgoes the fanfiction option of laying everything 
> out on the table and telling us what everyone in the room thinks.  
> Results in far more arguments about what actually happened, but is 
> far better literature. :)

Magpie:

Giving Dumbledore a beat of recognition seems very much a convention 
of original fiction (not fanfiction) to me.   Rowling often gives us 
clear external signs of internal conflict or understanding that the 
narrator reports to us.  Harry has just spent an entire scene giving 
us signs of internal conflict in another person.  I just can't see 
how, if the idea here is that Dumbledore has just realized that 
Snape, the man he's trusted in all this, is not to be trusted, the 
author can skip that moment. Dumbledore asked for Snape to begin 
with.  Snape is here.  Why is that suddenly a bad thing?  I think 
it's absolutely JKR's style to show us an outward sign in Dumbledore 
that he's just realized he's made a horrible mistake, but I'm not 
seeing it.  

Magpie: 
 
> > Perhaps an editor should have made sure in the end we all knew 
what 
> > everyone knew when.

Nora:
> 
> That would take most of the fun out of it, though.  It rockets us 
> into fanfictionland, where authors are happy to write out detailed 
> accounts of events and then have endless scenes (usually in the 
> Headmaster's Office and involving drinks, as a way to get the 
entire 
> cast of characters as audience in there) then explaining to us 
what 
> everyone has been doing and why they've been doing it.


Magpie:

It wouldn't take the fun out of it if we're supposed to know what's 
going on, which we possibly are.  Canon itself has had scenes in the 
headmaster's office to explain things--OotP ended with such 
a "Dumbledore explains it all" scene.  Sometimes Rowling assumes 
that we get things that we don't get, and in Book VI she's having to 
hide things from the reader that the characters know about.  I 
assumed that the reason nobody ever said in Chapter II that Draco 
was supposed to kill Dumbledore was because JKR didn't want the 
audience to hear it straight out, but that the characters of course 
knew what Draco was supposed to do.  They said they knew.  Yet much 
of fandom thinks Snape was bluffing and even though he said he knew 
the plan, he didn't.  I also assumed that when Dumbledore told Harry 
he already knew about the UV this meant that Dumbledore knew about 
it.  Yet many fans think he didn't know all of it.  

Maybe this is the sort of thing we're supposed to be wondering 
about, but I'm not certain it is, so I'm not sure how important 
speculation about it is.  The book might be more interesting if it 
were more clear, though, instead of less.  

-m






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 15 15:37:35 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:37:35 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0511141034k2ef17e2et5916ff3e2a971bee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dlcvbv+2art@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143055

Debbie:
> Grey!Snape bears more than a passing resemblence (but is clearly
> not identical) to something I posted last month, which I won't
> repeat, but which can be read here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142005

Jen: Thank you for re-posting this one. I particularly liked three 
components of your argument and feel they are important for this 
ever-expanding puzzle:

1) Snape's fury at Dumbledore over his handling of the Marauders 
after the Prank & designation of James as head boy, as well as 
opportune recruiting by the DE's, sent Snape to Voldemort's camp. 
Once there, Snape could play the role of the obsequious toady to 
Voldemort, but could never really *feel* the devotion required. Both 
father figures failed him, in other words. 

2) Snape was told by Voldemort about the plan to kill Dumbledore &  
his own likely role in carrying out the killing prior to Spinner's 
End. Snape had already relayed that information to Dumbledore before 
faced with the UV and the UV was both a brick in the wall to ensure 
Snape's place in Voldemort's camp, and a weakness by Snape which 
ensured the event would *have* to happen when it was once only a 
probability (that last part was something you alluded to in this 
post, I believe, but it fits here unless I'm putting words in your 
mouth <g>).

3) Snape, prior to the UV, realizes Dumbledore expects him to be the 
one to kill DD should it come to that, to protect Draco. Snape feels 
betrayed by being placed in the Judas role, to appear to the world 
as a traitor once again. His loyalty toward Dumbledore is tested by 
this confluence of events.

Debbie:
> As I see it, Snape's weakness has two root causes:
> (1) His emotions, which in most circumstances he is enormously
> adept at controlling, but he has a weak spot in that the wounds of
> his adolescence still have not fully healed ("fools . . . who
> cannot control their emotions, who wallow in memories and allow 
> themselves to be provoked so easily"). These issues come to the
> forefront in the Shrieking Shack and in the disastrous end to the
> Occlumency lessons.

Jen: I'm waiting for the tantalizing revelation of when Snape 
learned that "fools who wear their hearts proudly on their 
sleeves....who wallow in sad memories.....stand no chance against 
his powers!" That came across as a person who has learned his lesson 
the hard way.

Debbie:
> My thinking is similar, but I give Snape credit for genuine
> remorse and loyalty. Dumbledore's trust is justified because for
> sixteen years Snape's loyalty is with Dumbledore. The Occlumency
> fiasco was a revelation about the state of Snape's emotions, but
> not an indicator of his loyalty....Rather, it sets up the turmoil
> he faces at the end of HBP.

Jen: I didn't go into detail but do agree Snape showed genuine 
remorse when he switched sides and also felt real loyalty, made much 
easier when Voldemdort turned to vapor perhaps. And if we find out 
that Snape attempted to warn James and Lily that Voldmort had 
discovered their location, and James refused to believe it because 
he thought Sirius was still the Secret-Keeper, then I'd even go so 
far as to say Snape attempted to *atone* for his sins as well.

Debbie:
> I like this! I had not thought that his entrapment into the UV was
> the result of the DADA curse, but you're right. The DADA curse
> doesn't get much play, but its effect is a mirror to the luck
> conferred by Felix Felicis. With Felix Felicis everyone makes the
> right choices. Almost as the DADA curse kicks in Snape's double
> agent role is compromised by the UV.

Jen: That's exactly how I saw the UV too, as the antithesis of 
Felix! But my thoughts were simply an off-shoot of Carol's very 
concise and completely original post here about the DADA curse:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961

Debbie:
> I think Snape is left at the end of HBP alone with his emotions
> and Draco Malfoy and a bunch of decisions to make. His future
> loyalty is not assured, but I agree that he will do the right
> thing in the end.<snipping> This is why I picture Snape out there
> somewhere in his own private hell, trying to make up his mind
> whether to carry out Dumbledore's plan to save Draco or whether to
> go over to Voldemort and save himself. What would really justify
> Dumbledore's faith would be for Snape to emerge from this crucible
> and do the right thing. It's easy to be faithful while ensconced
> in a safe job at Hogwarts; to really justify Dumbledore's faith he
> must face a final test. That's one reason why I think Snape must
> have actually been loyal to Dumbledore up to and including the
> moment of the AK on the tower.

Jen: I should snip more but these two thoughts go together, just as 
Snape and private hell go together <g>. I do think it was a sign 
Snape was still loyal to Dumbledore at the end of GOF that he chose 
to follow Dumbledore's orders and return to Voldemort. Snape could 
have said, 'no way in hell, let's just say I'm on your side now and 
be done with it" and become another Trelawney for Dumbledore to 
protect from Voldemort. Returning to Voldemort and facing whatever 
he had in store was probably not a very enjoyable event judging from 
the torture Harry senses of Avery and which is promised to Bella in 
OOTP. All that to say I think the pressure started at the end of GOF 
and continued on, building up to the boiling point in HBP. 

But you're right that the real, true test of loyalty will come after 
Dumbledore is gone. When not feeling alternately comforted and 
trapped by Dumbledore's faith in him, what will Snape choose?

Potioncat:
> Jen suggests the Dark Arts have not tempted him. But they have! He
> was ready to use Crucio and even Septumsempra...or is it
> Semprasectum...on Snape. He was enjoying the spells (curses,
> hexes, whatever) that the Prince wrote about. He tried crucio on
> Bella...and whether it worked or not, he was tempted. Before HBP,
> I thought there might be a shady area around Dark Arts and it
> would easy enough to sort of slide into Dark Arts without meaning
> to.

Jen: I didn't mean to say that, I've argued before that when Harry 
is in a rage he has been tempted to try dark magic and that it's Not 
A Good Thing. The previous context was referring to the temptation 
of joining Voldemort.

Interestingly enough though, *Harry* doesn't realize he's been 
tempted to use dark magic. The fact that he never confided the MOM 
scene with Bella to anyone, and that only Snape was aware of the run 
across the grounds, points me to the idea that Snape (or the HBP) 
will end up being the one who overtly or covertly helps Harry 
understand why he can't follow that path.

Jen






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 15 16:02:54 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:02:54 -0000
Subject: Chap. 2 : Break in structure or variation?  (Re: Power vs. Trust )
In-Reply-To: <dladfb+bhhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dld0re+na2g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143056

Jen previous 
> So HBP broke with tradition. Harry should have learned about part
> of the UV as he did, misintepreted it, and Snape should have been
> proven right once again by the end of the book. <snip> We get to
> see Snape doing something outside Harry's POV and the action
> appears to be untrustworthy. In my mind, the through-line of the
> relationship got messed with a bit. Snape should not be seen
> actually *doing* something untrustworthy to maintain the simple
> trust storyline throughout.

> Magpie:
> Broke with tradition...or just played a variation on it?  Book VI 
> seemed to me like it was, as JKR has described it, a set up for
> Book VII.  This is the first half of the final story, and in the
> middle of the story Harry usually is mistaken as to what is going
> on. HBP resolved the Draco story, but possibly not the Snape
> story.  

Jen: That's exactly the question--did it break with the previous 
story structure or is it an unfinished variation? I reposted the 
bulk of my thought above in hopes a literary person who understands 
story structure will take a stab at explaining it, cause I can't.

When Sydney discussed the through-line of the Snape/Harry trust 
storyline leading to a reversal, this chapter stood out like a sore 
thumb to me, but I'm very open to possible explanations. 

In trying to arrange the puzzle pieces with no picture to go by, I'm 
left at the moment believing what Debbie said in post #143025, that 
the answer will be found in the off-screen interaction between Snape 
and Dumbledore. So far we don't know what happened between them 
prior to the UV, including the events of the ring, and then again 
after the UV. But we DO have the fight in the forest as a clue that 
part of the plot was shaping up in the background, and Harry and we 
aren't privy to it yet. 

Jen







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 17:43:27 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:43:27 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlcri8+f0a8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dld6nv+ss11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143057

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

> This is a series in which childhood, but especially perpetual 
> childhood, is not seen as an admirable state. We see over and over 
> again that childish judgement is by definition poor.   I would not 
> expect Harry's childish judgement of Snape to be validated.

I see a countersentiment running through the series (and in interview 
comments as well), though: children don't tell themselves the same 
sorts of lies for justification that adults do.  It is certainly true 
that children don't understand all of the pain and complexity of 
adult decisions.  But they are often also not willing to accept the 
kind of equivocation that marks adult reasoning and bargaining, and 
there's something sincere, honest, and positive about that.

JKR doesn't seem to be going for the whole 'enemy of my enemy is my 
friend' angle that is so common in the spy or thriller genre, where 
alliances must be made with distasteful characters.  If she were, 
then Harry should have reached a rapport with Scrimgeour instead of 
bluntly shoving him off to the side at the end of the book.  Remains 
to be seen if Harry's idealism will be rewarded, but I'd put better 
odds on than not.

<snip>
 
> If each action of Snape is sincerely meant, and marks a twist in 
> his path, then there is no blanket explanation for them and  JKR  
> will either have to revisit each one to tell us what Snape was 
> doing and why, or leave us in the dark. While some readers might 
> enjoy a Snape debate that went on for ever, that would leave Snape 
> as the books' most intriguing character. It is Harry who is 
> supposed to be interesting.

There is the option of presenting it in broad strokes, instead of 
accounting for each and every action (which she's already covered a 
lot of with Spinner's End, except--oh, he's faking most of it there, 
isn't he?).  We're owed an explanation of why Dumbledore trusted him--
we know that.  We've also been told ex cathedra that we are indeed 
going to get a fuller explanation of the so-called Prank.  I see a 
chapter starring some character as Basil Exposition already.  Why not 
fold in "And then I got tired of doing all this stuff and pretending 
to like the good guys and waited until I could get out of it"?

> Evil!Snape or DDM!Snape is a lot simpler and covered by the 
> explanation we've already been given: Snape is a good actor and 
> whenever he needs to, he can pretend. 

Possible, of course.  I think at least a few other listies have the 
same objection to it that I do: any explanation which covers 
everything *explains* nothing (like psychoanalysis, or hard-line 
Marxism).  Anything which could totally account for both of these 
positions seems rather...boring.  But that's just my opinion.

-Nora still sits the fence with abandon, but feels an imperative to 
be a devil's advocate contra majority opinion at the present






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 15 17:53:09 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:53:09 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl8ppb+vtua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F632CE6947882B9D906201915D0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143058



 > Valky:
 > In simple terms three facts:
 > Harry *IS* a Wizard
 > His affairs are Wizard Affairs
 > The Dursleys took him in and meddled in his affairs.
 > Hence The Dursleys took wizard affairs into their home and meddled
 > with them to suit their purposes. It all very simply comes down to
 > their own stubborn stupidity and hypocrisy doesn't it.

>a_svirn:
>The Dursleys are muggles.
>They don't want to have anything to do with magic.
>Dumbledore dumped Harry at their doorstep, thus meddling with their
>life.
>They took Harry and by doing so saved his skin. If anything
>Dumbledore should be damn well grateful for that.


PJ: (who first apologizes for any spelling errors.  Wizarding words are 
tough to spell)  :-)

Petunia isn't a "regular" muggle.  Her sister was a Witch and both her 
Brother-in-law and nephew were/are Wizards.  She was well aware of all this 
and just what it entailed when they took Harry in.  Their desire not to have 
anything to do with the WW goes down the tubes once they *willingly* take a 
Wizard into their homes to raise!

All in all I would say the WW was very good about respecting the Dursley's 
wishes to be left alone.  Until Harry's 11th birthday officially put him 
under the auspices of the WW he belonged to rather the the muggle world the 
Dursleys wanted him to stay in, no one bothered them.  The MoM didn't send 
anyone around monthly or even yearly for home visits to check on Harry - 
something that Social Services would automatically do when placing a child 
in our world - Dumbledore didn't insist on visitation rights even though as 
head of the Wizangamott he probably had the authority.

The Dursley's problems with the Magical World start once Harry finds his 
place in his world, not before.  It's Harry who the Weasleys come for, it's 
Harry who the owls leave all that mail for, it's Harry who the Dementors are 
after, and Harry who the Wizards are protecting at the station... this all 
has nothing to do with Dumbledore or MoM but with the child the Dursley's 
knowingly, WILLINGLY took into their home as a baby coming into his own as 
the Wizard *they knew him to be* and which the Dursleys had to know was at 
least a strong possibility when they accepted him into their home.

Petunia at least had *some* idea of what they were in for if they couldn't 
"stamp the magic" out of Harry so to say the Dursleys were forced to deal 
with the Wizarding World just doesn't fly, IMO.  It was their choice of 
giving him "house room" to begin with which brought them to this juncture.

PJ (who's wondering if perhaps we haven't seen a working Fidelius Charm from 
book 1 without realizing it?)





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 19:45:32 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:45:32 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F632CE6947882B9D906201915D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dlddss+rsle@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143059

 
> PJ:  
> Petunia isn't a "regular" muggle.  

a_svirn:
Yes, she is. Until it's proven otherwise she is a regular and 
ordinary muggle.

PJ:
>Her sister was a Witch and both her 
> Brother-in-law and nephew were/are Wizards.  She was well aware of 
all this 
> and just what it entailed when they took Harry in.  Their desire 
not to have 
> anything to do with the WW goes down the tubes once they 
*willingly* take a 
> Wizard into their homes to raise!

a_svirn:
They took their nephew, because his life was endangered. We don't 
know by the way whether they knew for sure that Harry was a wizard 
at the time. Moreover, Dumbledore suggested that they should bring 
him up as their own. I think to them it meant as muggle. 

PJ
> All in all I would say the WW was very good about respecting the 
Dursley's 
> wishes to be left alone.  Until Harry's 11th birthday officially 
put him 
> under the auspices of the WW he belonged to rather the the muggle 
world the 
> Dursleys wanted him to stay in, no one bothered them.  

a_svirn:

This is certainly one way of putting it. I would say though that in 
*our* world when you leave your child, or at any rate, a child you 
are responsible for at other people's doorstep, you therefore 
renounce any claim on him, don't you? 

PJ:
The MoM didn't send 
> anyone around monthly or even yearly for home visits to check on 
Harry - 
> something that Social Services would automatically do when placing 
a child 
> in our world - Dumbledore didn't insist on visitation rights even 
though as 
> head of the Wizangamott he probably had the authority.

a_svirn:
Had he though? I was under the impression that he took the task of 
arranging Harry's future upon himself without consulting any 
authorities. 

PJ:
  It was their choice of 
> giving him "house room" to begin with which brought them to this 
juncture.

a_svirn:
This is certainly true. Even though we don't know just how free was 
that choice.  The long and short of it however, that they did give 
him a houseroom and by doing so have kept him alive for nearly 
sixteen years. The least Dumbledore could do under the circumstances 
is to keep his contempt for himself. 






From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Nov 15 17:49:58 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:58 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape
In-Reply-To: <dlcvbv+2art@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dld746+pfp7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143060

Jen Reese  wrote:
> 3) Snape, prior to the UV, realizes Dumbledore expects him to be 
the 
> one to kill DD should it come to that, to protect Draco. Snape 
feels 
> betrayed by being placed in the Judas role, to appear to the world 
> as a traitor once again. His loyalty toward Dumbledore is tested 
by 
> this confluence of events.


I liked to expand on this a little bit...about Snape and his playing 
Judas. Two events, after Snape murdered Dumbledore, are used to help 
explain Snape. One is his response to Harry calling him coward and 
the other is the symbolism between Fang the Boarhound barking and 
such as he is trapped in a burning house and Snape. When Harry calls 
Snape a coward and to kill him like Snape killed Dumbledore he does 
more then simply taunt Snape
he damns him. Harry reveals that he 
knows the depths of what Snape has done
that he, Harry, knows 
Snape's most terrible crime. Snape may not have even known that 
Harry was on that Tower but with that sentence Harry shows that he 
knows what Snape has done (although he doesn't yet know for what 
reason). The Fang analogy is interesting because, in the end, Fang 
has to be rescued by Hagrid. If Snape is being compared to Fang then 
it stands to reason that Snape is in serious trouble and that he 
needs to be "saved." That would be a change in the Harry/Snape 
dynamic
Harry would have to pull Snape's bacon out of the fire. 

It also sets up a nice parallel with "the Prank"
once again Snape 
has managed to put himself in a life-endangering situation and needs 
a Potter to save him except this time the stakes are way higher. It 
also balances the scales slightly
Harry must overcome his hatred of 
Snape to save Snape and Snape must let go of his hatred of James and 
Harry and learn to accept their help.   

> Jen: I didn't mean to say that, I've argued before that when Harry 
> is in a rage he has been tempted to try dark magic and that it's 
Not 
> A Good Thing. The previous context was referring to the temptation 
> of joining Voldemort.
> 
> Interestingly enough though, *Harry* doesn't realize he's been 
> tempted to use dark magic. The fact that he never confided the MOM 
> scene with Bella to anyone, and that only Snape was aware of the 
run 
> across the grounds, points me to the idea that Snape (or the HBP) 
> will end up being the one who overtly or covertly helps Harry 
> understand why he can't follow that path.

Quick_Silver:
I personally think that if Harry is to resolve his issues with the 
Dark Arts, and I'm leery of saying that his issue is a major one 
(I'm still hoping that he'll get to beat Snape using the Dark Arts), 
that it must come from within. What's more Harry's use of Dark Magic 
stems from his lack of control over his emotions which is an 
important point. Unlike some wizards who embrace the Dark Arts 
dispassionately or for power or to achieve ends Harry seems to use 
them because he's flying off into emotional insanity. So Harry's use 
is indicative of a larger problem.

I'd be more worried about the likes of Hermione who might see the 
Dark Arts as a means to an end.

Quick_Silver (who still hopes that Voldemort took a leaf from 
Sirius's book and manipulated Snape) 









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 15 15:42:55 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:42:55 -0000
Subject: All of a Piece (was re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape)
In-Reply-To: <20051115080459.50589.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dlcvlv+pfm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143061

Irene Mikhlin wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> 
> You know,  you should prepare for a massive
> disappointment. :-)
> If JKR punishes Snape in any way close to what you
> anticipate, it will be for murdering Dumbledore, for
> his role in the deaths of Potters or maybe Sirius,
> possibly for some yet undisclosed things, but his
> teaching methods won't be on of them, I'm ready to bet
> the farm on it.
>  She's upped the ante in book 6, the game is very
> different now. All our arguments about what kind of
> teacher Snape is are so passe. :-)
> 


And yet, as Nora likes to point out, it's all of a piece, isn't it? 
If indeed JKR is a theorist of character as opposed to a theorist of 
action, which I believe she probably is, I don't think the question 
of Snape and his child abusing methods are passe at all.  After all, 
from what does all this issue of trust and power arise, if not Snape 
and his daily attitudes toward Harry?  That is the root of much of 
the tragedy that has befallen the side of light recently.  Sirius' 
death, Harry's failure to master occlumency, the absolute meltdown 
at the end of HBP, all spring in part or in whole from Snape's 
interactions with Harry. And as I say, if Snape isn't punished for 
the way he's abused Harry, then JKR is a very poor writer indeed 
with no idea of how to craft a well-written and satisfactory story.

I don't doubt there are a lot of other factors to be weighed, and a 
lot of things Snape has to answer for.  But I deny that they can be 
separated out into "Well, we can punish Snape for the Potters but 
not for hating Harry," or "We can punish Snape for Dumbledore but 
not his teaching methods."  These factors are so deeply interrelated 
that it is impossible to weigh and judge one without weighing and 
judging them all.  And if, as Alla particularly likes to theorize -- 
and I think theorize well --  the type of punishment likely to be 
manifest in the end is that of karmic retribution and poetic 
justice, then it is almost inevitable that it will be determined by 
Snape's entire gestalt of interactions and personality, including 
fairly obviously his daily attitudes and actions and, yes, teaching 
methods.

There has always, as once again Nora likes to point out, been a 
fundamental tension in the HP saga between what many people perceive 
JKR's message to be and what she often actually shows.  That is many 
people think the message is "our choices make us who we are," even 
though the actual quote is "our choices reveal who we are."  And yet 
a deep, although not universal, strain of essentialism runs through 
the characters, as best revealed by Voldemort who seems, JKR's 
protestations not withstanding, to have been evil from birth.   Now, 
essentialism does not mean simplicity.  Many people have very 
complicated and internally incoherent characters, and their actions 
reflect this.  And it is true that the question of choice and 
character becomes terribly blurred as you really push the issue, and 
trying to figure out in the end whether decision springs from deep 
psychology or psychology is formed by decision becomes one of the 
greatest of all chicken and egg problems.  Still, JKR does seem to 
hold, perhaps instinctively, to the idea that character is destiny.  
And thus in the end nearly everything, comes down not to analysis 
and decision, not to plots and plans, but to who you, in your 
innermost heart, are.  And who you are is revealed as much, in fact 
more, in your daily interactions as it is in your decisions at a 
moment of crisis.  And, probably more importantly, who you are in 
the long run effects others more in your daily interactions than it 
does in your decisions at a moment of crisis.


Lupinlore








From darqali at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 00:43:14 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:43:14 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <20051114233606.75927.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dlbav2+bkbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143062

CH3ed wrote:
> I'm re-reading PoA and just got curious about boggarts and wonder 
> if others can clear things up for me. :O) 
> 1. <snip> So... had Lupin been correct and the first boggart in 
> the staff room turned into LV when it saw Harry, would the LV-
> boggart be able to do magic?

********
Darqali's answer: The Boggart affects the mind of the person who views it.  It is not so much what the Boggart can actually *do*, but what the subject person *thinks is going to happen*.  The Boggart affects *perception*, not *reality*.

Harry feared Dementors the most, so when he viewed the Boggart, it 
sensed Harry's deepest fear and *appeared to be* a Dementor to 
Harry.  The Dementors act on the mind, as well, forcing people to re-
live their life's worst moments, so, Harry's mind replayed the 
childhood scene he *expected* to see when he was confronted by the 
Dementor Shaped Boggart {because that is what happened in the 
presence of *real* Dementors}.  Had Harry never had a real Dementor 
encounter, the Boggart would not have had that affect on him; or, if 
Harry's real Dementor encounter resulted in the surfacing of another 
horrible memory, *that* memory would be what surfaced when Harry 
faced the Dementor Shaped Boggart.

The Boggart can never really be LV, and no, had someone {such as 
Harry} seen the Boggart and had LV as "their worst fear", the LV-
Shaped Boggart would *not* have LV's powers .... anymore than the 
Prof. McGonagall-Shaped Boggart would have the *power* to fail 
Hermione on all her exams!

[Question:  If someone viewing a Boggart feared LV the most but had 
never *seen* LV, what shape would the Boggart take ?????  Most in the WW have never *seen * LV, in the flesh, after all .... my guess would be, the resulting Boggart would be what that person *imagined* LV to look like, not LV's *actual appearance*; presuming the Boggart gets its information from the subject's mind.]

CH3ed:
> 2. What did Moody see when he used his magical eye to check out 
> that boggart in the drawing room cupboard at 12GP for Molly? 

******

Darqali's answer: We cannot know for certain, because JKR doesn't tell us.

******

CH3ed:
> In PoA Lupin taught that no one knows what a boggart looks like 
> when he is locked up in isolation...He is shapeless until he is 
> seen....or is it until he sees someone? So would Moody had seen an 
> empty cupboard that was shaking? What if you lock up a boggart in 
> a box made of one way mirror so you can see in, but the boggart 
> can't see out? Would that boggart have a shape? 

******

Darqali's answer: While we cannot know for certain, it seems that the best guess would be that the Boggart is a creature that performs some kind of Legilimency  on the person viewing it ... for it can *read* that person's deepest fear.  Remember, Prof. Snape told Harry that eye contact was {usually} necesssary in performing Legilimency; so it is the *Boggart* who must view *the Person* {to perform Legilimency, *reading* the person's deepest fear}, so as to decide what shape to assume to frighten *that* person}.

If the Boggart could not see the person, it could not perform 
Legilimency, and would not know what shape to assume to frighten that person {even if the person, using a one-way mirror, could see the space the Boggart occupied}.

But as for *what shape* the viewed Boggart would appear .... from 
canon we must state "No One Knows" .... because no one has ever done 
that.

Unless Moody did, with his eye which appearantly can see through the 
back of his head, school desks, and other solid objects such as desk 
in the corner of the drawing room at #12, Grimauld Place.

Now, would Moody recognize an *unformed Boggart*?  Well, maybe; he is a very experienced Auror, after all.  But if so, then Hermione's 
answer in Lupin's class ["No one knows"] was incorrect, after all.

Rather, my *guess* would be that Moody knew what other nasty hidden 
creatures might occupy such a space {and behave in such a manner as 
to make the desk shake}, and when he looked and didn't see any of 
*them*, by default he confirmed what *was* there had to be a 
Boggart.  [When you have eliminated all the possibilities you go with what remains, even if you can't see it.  The Unformed Boggart would be the *one thing*  Moody couldn't actually see.]

********
CH3ed:
> 3. Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' 
> cellar? 

********

Darqali's answer:  We are indeed unlikely ever to know.  "Smuggling" or "Theft" are the answers which comes most readily to mind.  "Safety in dangerous times" is another.

*********
CH3ed:
> 4. And how did Ron know to run breathlessly into Snape's office to 
> tell Snape that the Marauders' Map was a toy he got from Zonko's 
> and bailed Harry out? Harry was caught by Snape just after he 
> cleared the hidden passage. Ron shouldn't have known where Harry 
> went, ay? 

*********

Darqali's answer:

Ron *didn't* actually *know* Harry had a problem with Snape.  He 
*did* know Harry had headed back to school by a slower route than 
Draco & Co were able to take, and he *guessed* that Draco would go 
directly to Snape, and that Snape was *likely* to catch Harry before 
he was able to get back to his Dorm and unload his pockets ....

It probably wasn't the M's Map that Ron was concerned about helping 
Harry explain.  Harry had purchased things in Hogsmead, and had them 
in his pockets.  Ron knew if Harry was caught by Snape, he'd have to 
explain them, and he headed to Snape's office to provide Harry with 
an excuse, *presuming* that Draco had beat Harry back to Hogwarts and that Snape would be ready to *pounce* on Harry ... it was a *guess* on Ron's part, that Draco would run straight to Snape, and he was right.

As for the M's Map, Snape had spotted it among the things Harry had 
on his person.  Lupin was there and knew perfectly well what the map 
was, being among its makers, and it was *Lupin* who suggested to 
Snape that the Map was a prank object from Zonkos' joke shop.  Ron's 
timely arrival appeared to confirm this.  

Though darqali does not think Prof. Snape was convinced ....not one 
little bit.


******A NOTE FROM THE ELVES:  Hi Darqali!  Please check the e-mail account associated with your HPfGU membership, <darqali at yahoo.com>.  You can do so by clicking on the "Mail" link at the top of this page, on the left, or by going to http://mail.yahoo.com while signed into your Yahoo ID.  Please e-mail us at HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space).  Thanks!******







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 15 20:22:31 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:22:31 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlddss+rsle@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldg27+s13p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143063

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
>  
> > PJ:  
> > Petunia isn't a "regular" muggle.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, she is. Until it's proven otherwise she is a regular and 
> ordinary muggle.


Geoff:
As regular and ordinary as any Muggle who has a relative in the 
Wizarding World?

"...Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that - 
that /school/ - and came home every holiday with her pockets full of 
frog-spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw her 
for what she was - a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it 
was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the 
family!"

(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.44 UK edition)

As regular and ordinary as any Muggle who can recognise 
Transfigurations and have a bad dose of jealousy.


> a_svirn:
> They took their nephew, because his life was endangered. We don't 
> know by the way whether they knew for sure that Harry was a wizard 
> at the time. 


Geoff:
'"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," said 
Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"
"You /knew/? said Harry. "You /knew/ I'm a - a wizard?"
"Knew!" shrieked Aunt Petunia suddenly. "/Knew/! Of course we 
knew!..."'

(ibid. pp.43-44)

QED.






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 15 16:04:23 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:04:23 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlcri8+f0a8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dld0u7+2gf9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143064

Pippin_999  wrote:

> 
> This is a series in which childhood, but especially perpetual 
childhood, is
> not seen as an admirable state. We see over and over again that 
childish
> judgement is by definition poor.   I would not expect Harry's 
childish 
> judgement of Snape to be validated.


Gee.  I'm not at all sure where you're getting this from.  Childhood 
is portrayed as inevitably coming to an end, true.  But part of that 
coming to an end ISN'T automatically more sympathy with the adults --
 it is in fact learning that the adults are in fact sometimes deeply 
flawed in choice and character, and sometimes even more malicious 
and incompetent than the child originally thought.  Think of the 
different views of Fudge, for instance, or your bete noir, Lupin, 
that Harry gains as he grows older.  I'm not at all sure the message 
is "It's great and glorious to grow up and throw aside the false 
images of wretched childhood," but something more like "Growing up 
is inevitable and unfortunately very painful in part due to the fact 
that the failings and foolishness and malice of adults become so 
much more apparent.  We just have to deal with it the best we can 
and hold on to our childhood virtues if at all possible."

Pippin:
<SNIP> 

>  Evil!Snape or DDM!Snape is a lot simpler and covered by the 
explanation
> we've already been given: Snape is a good actor and whenever he 
needs
> to, he can pretend. 
> 

Lupinlore:
To quote Juli, *YAWN*.  So we just impose a solution and sweep aside 
whatever is dissonant with a shrug and an explanation that "well, 
Snape was acting."  Seems pretty much like special pleading to me -- 
not to mention poor and lazy writing.
Lupinlore








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 20:33:10 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:33:10 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dl9mmv+kfqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldgm6+j4li@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143065

Julie wrote <snip>:
> > 4. Nothing in Harry being the hero means he has to be right about
everything. In fact, one component of being a hero in literature is
learning and growing, coming to a better understanding of the
surrounding world and the people in it. 
> 
> 
Lupinlore responded:
> BORING!  Joseph Campbell to the fore, once again.  Not to mention
that would be extraordinarily insipid and morally revolting.  Oh, and
did I say BOOORRRIIING!

Carol responds:
Why does everything have to relate to Joseph Campbell? Forget the
heroic quest for a moment: The Bildungsroman (coming-of-age novel, for
those not familiar with the term) also requires that the young
protagonist go through a series of character-developing experiences
that eventually lead him to "a better understanding of the surrounding
world and the people in it," to quote Julie. Or, as William Blake
(who, of course, wrote poetry rather than novels) put it, the child
goes from a state of Innocence (not purity or essential goodness but a
lack of understanding) through Experience (dealing with hardship and
facing challenges) to Wisdom (understanding). You see exactly that
progression in "Jane Eyre," "David Copperfield," "Great Expectations"
and any other novel of growing up. (Other posters may be able to cite
more recent examples of the genre.)

At any rate, there's nothing trite about it. That's what life is
about. If we knew everything there is to know at eleven, if we learned
nothing from experience, then adults would need to step aside and let
children rule the world. 

Maybe Draco is right and Dumbledore is just a "stupid old man" who's
wrong about Snape. After all, that's just a stronger version of
Harry's view that Dumbledore is wrong to trust Snape. The kids, both
the newly minted Death Eater and the Chosen One, agree that the old
mentor's judgment is not to be trusted. Their instincts are more sound
than the judgment of a highly intelligent old man who distrusted Tom
Riddle from the beginning and defeated the Dark wizard Grindelwald.

Somehow, I don't think that's JKR's message. Harry has to learn and
grow. That's part of life and a requirement of the Bildungsroman
genre. If that's boring (I mean "BOOOOORING!") then perhaps you should
read some other book or series. How about the Alice books, in which
the adventures are nothing but a dream, or a tragedy in which the hero
dies rather than gaining a better understanding of his world and the
other characters? 

How, if I dare ask, is it "insipid and morally revolting" for the
protagonist to grow up, to know and understand more at seventeen than
he did at eleven? Why have the books at all if the child protagonist
knows no more about anything except how to cast a spectacular spell or
two at the end of the series than he did at the beginning? I honestly
don't understand how having Harry learn that Dumbledore was right to
trust Snape (or about choices and death and all the other lessons he
attempted to teach Harry) would be "morally revolting." (*I* think it
would be "morally revolting" to have Harry's primitive, childish
desire for revenge presented as heroic, and I sincerely hope that
Harry will never cast a successful Crucio against Snape or anyone else.)

Carol, thanking Lupinlore for not including the word "cheesy" in this
post and noting as an aside (to whom it may concern) that Campbell's
analysis of mythic structure should not be confused with the literary
theory called Structuralism, which derives from Claude Levi-Strass's
ideas relating to language and culture

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/structuralism.html






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 20:54:04 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:54:04 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dlcvbv+2art@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143066

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:
>
> Debbie:
> > Grey!Snape bears more than a passing resemblence (but is clearly
> > not identical) to something I posted last month, which I won't
> > repeat, but which can be read here:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142005

> Jen: ... I particularly liked three components .. and feel they
> are important for this ever-expanding puzzle:
> 
> 1) Snape's fury at Dumbledore over his handling of the Marauders 
> after the Prank & designation of James as head boy, as well as 
> opportune recruiting by the DE's, sent Snape to Voldemort's camp. 
> Once there, Snape could play the role of the obsequious toady to 
> Voldemort, but could never really *feel* the devotion required. Both 
> father figures failed him, in other words. 
> 

bboyminn:

Jen, I agree with you as a whole, but differ on some of the specifics.

I've tried to avoid the Snape discussion because they are somewhat
circular and unresolvable. But I think some very key points are
brought up in this post.

On point 1), I very much agree that these early 'stings' to his psyche
are the key events that pushed Snape in the direction of the Dark
Lord. I'm sure here in the Dark Lord's camp, he thought he had found
some kindred spirits, some like-minded souls.  And, in philisophical
concept, he had, but Dark Lord philosophy is just a con to get people
to follow him. In reality, the Dark Lord is not about the superiority
of Pureblood, it's about power and control. The Dark Lord wants it
all, and he is willing to do anything to get it. And therein lies the
rub. 

While the words of the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters fed the part of
Snape soul that desperately needed to be fed, their action neither fit
their philosophy nor did those actions feed Snape's soul the way it
needed to be fed. I'm sure Snape had problems reconciling the random
pointless 'sport' torture and murder of innocent people with the idea
of Purebloods being superior beings. 

We know at some point, as I have always said and that now the books
agree, that the Dark Lord sent Snape to join Dumbledore's side. That
was no small task. He must have been very confident of Snape's
abilities to assign such an impossible task to him. Once in the
Dumbledore camp, and now as a long time adult, Snape saw a world that
was very different from his school days. An adult world in which
people respected him for his skill and ability. Suddenly as an adult,
he was getting the respect he never got as a kid, and from the very
people he thought never would or could respect him. He saw that while
Dumbledore' crew were not spouting the Pureblood philosophy of
superiority, they were actually living it much closer than Voldemort
was. In the Dumbledore camp, people were truly respected, and that
respect had nothing to do with gaining power, kowtowing to a
self-proclaimed 'Lord', or the pointless torture and murder of muggles.

Conclusion; Snape really did join Dumbledore's camp; he finally felt
trusted, respected, and accepted. Still, the most valuable mission
Snape could do for Dumbledore was to continue to appear to work for
Voldemort. 

> Jen Continues:
>
> 2) Snape was told by Voldemort about the plan to kill Dumbledore &  
> his own likely role in carrying out the killing prior to Spinner's 
> End. Snape had already relayed that information to Dumbledore before 
> faced with the UV ...
> 
> 3) Snape, prior to the UV, realizes Dumbledore expects him to be the 
> one to kill DD should it come to that, to protect Draco. Snape feels 
> betrayed by being placed in the Judas role, to appear to the world 
> as a traitor once again. His loyalty toward Dumbledore is tested by 
> this confluence of events.

bboyminn:

Here is where I don't agree, though I admit I can't prove my position.
JKR was very careful to make sure we could not determine Snape's true
allegiance. Personally, I think Snape was bluffing when the told
Narcissa that he knew the details of the Dark Lord's plan. Thinking
that the Dark Lord wanted to kill Dumbledore wasn't much of a stretch
though; everyone pretty well knew that. I think Snape said that he
knew to get Narcissa to open up and give him more details. 

I also don't believe that Snape and Dumbledore had a specific detailed
plan. Some speculate that Snape and Dumbledore /planned/ the Tower
incident, but that seems next to impossible since the bulk of the plan
was carried out by Death Eaters. The DE are not really going to
cooperate in any plan of Dumbledore's.

I think on a more general level Snape and Dumbledore had discussions
in which Dumbledore emphasized that the Plan to defeat Voldemort was
more important than Dumbledore's life, and that if the situation
should arise, Snape should choose his actions for the good of the long
term Plan rather than the good of the moment. So, no conspiracy, but a
general understanding.

As to point 3), again I agree in concept, but not in details. I agree
with the end result, but not necessarily the detail of the method that
lead to the end result. 

I think Snape very much resent being placed in the 'Judas' role. In
killing Dumbledore, Snape has set the wizard world against him for all
time. Even if Snape can come up with a reasonable explanation of the
circumstances, in the end, the wizard world will never forgive him.
So, Snape is well aware that in destroying Dumbledore, Snape has
destroyed himself  even under the best of circumstances. I think this
is evident in Snape's reaction to being called a coward by Harry. If
Harry only knew the level of courage Snape had just shown. If Harry
only knew just how much Snape had sacrificed for the sake of
Dumbledore's Grand Plan, Harry could never call him a coward. 

> Jen continues:
>
> Debbie:
> > I think Snape is left at the end of HBP alone with his emotions
> > and Draco Malfoy and a bunch of decisions to make. ...snipping>
> > This is why I picture Snape out there somewhere in his own 
> > private hell, trying to make up his mind whether to carry out 
> > Dumbledore's plan to save Draco or whether to go over to 
> > Voldemort and save himself. ...
> 
> Jen: ...edited...
> But you're right that the real, true test of loyalty will come after 
> Dumbledore is gone. When not feeling alternately comforted and 
> trapped by Dumbledore's faith in him, what will Snape choose?
> 

bboyminn:

Since Dumbledore was killed and Draco achieved his task of fixing the
Vanishing Cabinet which allowed the Death Eaters into the castle, and
thereby allowed Dumbledore to be killed, I don't think Draco is in
imminent danger of death. 

Certainly, he did as much as the Dark Lord could expect from a kid. I
think Snape will continue in his role as Spy. He will convince the
Dark Lord that he got as much as he ever had a right to expect from
Draco, and after a bit of punishment, Draco will be forgiven, and much
like Wormtail, will be put under Snape's care for the moment. 

That puts Snape in a very awkward position. Does he ask Draco if he is
interested in the protection Dumbledore offerred him, and thereby risk
revealing his own disloyalty to the Dark Lord; or does he just let the
situation ride and thereby allow Draco to truly go over to the Dark
Side? Something that at the moment, I don't think Draco is real eager
to do. But Draco is also caught between a rock and a hard place; does
he trust Snape enough to confess that he wants out? 

Snape's life as a double agent was probably pretty complicated and
dangerous, but that was nothing compared to what his life is like now.
He is THE MOST WANTED MAN in the wizard world. For the moment, he is
probably more wanted than Voldemort. Plus, if he really intends to
work Dumbledore's plan, his position amoung the Death Eaters is also
dangerously precarious. Before Snape spent all his time at the school,
and only had to pretent to be a DE for a meeting now and then. Now
Snape will have to spend all his time hiding from the Aurors, and
associating with only the DE's and the Dark Lord. Snape is very much
under a microscope now. The slightest misstep could mean the end for him. 

I do believe that Snape, miserable a person as he is, is still working
Dumbledore Grand Plan, and is willing to continue to work it
regardless of the consequences to himself. Ultimately, in the end,
Snape will prove his worth. Though whether he will live or die in the
process is hard to determine. In one sense, it would be a mercy for
Snape to die redeeming himself. Like I said, even with redemption and
a REALLY good explanation, the wizard world will never forgive Snape
for killing Dumbledore.



> Potioncat:
> > Jen suggests the Dark Arts have not tempted him. But they have! He
> > was ready to use Crucio and even Septumsempra.... Before HBP,
> > I thought there might be a shady area around Dark Arts and it
> > would easy enough to sort of slide into Dark Arts without meaning
> > to.
> 
> Jen: ... I've argued before that when Harry is in a rage he has 
> been tempted to try dark magic and that it's Not A Good Thing. 
> The previous context was referring to the temptation of joining 
> Voldemort.
> 
> Interestingly enough though, *Harry* doesn't realize he's been 
> tempted to use dark magic. The fact that he never confided the MOM 
> scene with Bella to anyone, and that only Snape was aware of the run 
> across the grounds, points me to the idea that Snape (or the HBP) 
> will end up being the one who overtly or covertly helps Harry 
> understand why he can't follow that path.
> 
> Jen

bboyminn:

Some very critical points regarding Harry and the Dark Arts. Yes,
Harry has tried to use the Unforgivable Curses. I can't help but
wonder what JKR is up to with that. Is she simply trying to show Harry
as a flawed Hero? Is she forshadowing something important? Enquiring
minds want to know.

In addition, JKR has never really brought Harry to task for being
tempted by dark magic, despite Harry's 'pure heart' being a critical
theme in the story. So far, no one seems aware that Harry has used or
attempted to use Unforgivables. I wonder what Ron and Hermione would
say if they knew? 

To some extent I blame Harry use of the Unforgivables on the
incredibly poor training he has been given. If I had a kid that I knew
would have to face a terrible fate, I would have started training him
specifically to face that fate. I think Dumbledore and many others
have wanted Harry to live as normal and ordinary a life as possible.
They didn't want to burden him with his dark fate. But in protecting
him, they have made sure that he is wholly unprepared to face that fate. 

Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and resources.
If he had a full complement of Charms, Spells, Curses, and
Counter-Curses, and finely honed skills, he wouldn't have to resort to
Unforgivables. Given that all he has to work with are schoolyard
bullying jinxes and the Unforgivables with nothing practical
inbetween, they have really left Harry kind of powerless. When
schoolyard jinxes and curses aren't enough, Harry has no were to go
but to the dark and unforgivable. 

Lately, I've been fantasizing that McGonagall will ask Harry to
continue the D.A. Club in the next book. Not necessarily to come to
Hogwarts as a student or a formal teacher, but to simply drop by once
a week and teach the D.A. Club. 

This would help Harry hone his skills as well as helping the Student
practice self-defense during a critical time for needing that
knowledge. This also gives Harry, Ron, and Hermione an excuse to
return to the school frequently for research and private lessons, and
perhaps even Order meetings. 

To the last point, while I have no proof or even sound indications, I
think Snape will be instrumental in helping Harry. The Horcrux task is
near impossible, even when we factor in things like one of the
Horcruxes being at Grimmauld Place. I really don't see Harry having
either the skill or resources to find and destroy the Horcruxes, so I
can only conclude that he will get some substantial outside help from
somewhere. The only available candidate for that level of help is Snape. 

I'm not saying that the good guys won't help Harry, certainly they
will, but they are in no position to have the knowledge or skill to
solve the Horcrux problem. Help can only come from the dark side,
because only they have the knowledge of Voldemort that can give Harry
the shortcut he needs. 

Just one problem, how is Snape EVER going to get Harry to trust him?
Even if he acts anonymously, how can he possibly convey information to
Harry in a way that Harry will trust?

I'll be amazed if JKR can pull this off. There just seems to be too
many impossible tasks, and too many impossible to resolve plot points
for it all to conclude in only one book. 

And best of all, only two more years before we find out. Woo-Hoo!

Steve/bboyminn







From ornawn at 013.net  Tue Nov 15 20:57:25 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:57:25 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
Message-ID: <dldi3l+skvu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143067

>CH3ed:

>4. And how did Ron know to run breathlessly into Snape's office to 
>tell Snape
>that the Marauders' Map was a toy he got from Zonko's and bailed 
Harry >out?
>Harry was caught by Snape just after he cleared the hidden passage. 
>Ron shouldn't have known where Harry went, ay?

Orna:
That's the only one, I can offer some good explanation. The incident 
was with Malfoy, therefore Ron knew, Malfoy would run to Snape. And 
so he ran to his office. I don't think he meant the marauder's map, 
when he said he go it from Zonko ? he didn't say "the map", he 
referred to "it", and I think he meant all the sweeties they bought 
this very day. After all Snape did ask Harry about it, some minutes 
before, and Ron might have figured out for himself, that Harry 
needed some backup to explain their presence in his pockets.  Harry 
was just lucky that Lupin said the map was a Zonko product, so it 
cleared him also about the map. 
(Not that Snape believed, of course).

>CH3ed:
>GH. So... had Lupin been correct and the first boggart in the staff 
>room turned
>into LV when it saw Harry, would the LV-boggart be able to do magic?

Orna:
This one, I can try ? not sure about it.
I don't think so. The light going out, and the rehearing of his 
parent's death, are things Harry could imagine, like Molly could 
imagine her family being dead, and her fears where consolidated in 
an image of them lying flat on the floor. I don't think the 
boggart "does" these things in a real sense. So a LV could be 
imagined to do magic, kill and crucio people ? but it would happen 
to solid imaginations of things ? not really, as far as I understand 
Boggarts.

>CH3ed:
>3. Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' 
cellar? >I guess we
>won't hear any story about it as it doesn't seem significant. I'm 
just >curious
>of the story behind it.

Orna:
I think it's a good question, especially, as we are all the time 
told, that Hogwarts is a very safe and magically protected place. 
And here is a secret passage, even Snape and Filch don't know about; 
open to every other visitor
But I'm willing to take it, that JKR 
just needed it for the story, not much mystery attached to it. 
Perhaps the elves use it to bring food from Hogsmeade to the castle.


Orna, who  hasn't got a clue to what boggarts look like in the 
drawer










From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 15 21:34:10 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:34:10 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlddss+rsle@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldk8i+dr31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143068

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
>  
> > PJ:  
> > Petunia isn't a "regular" muggle.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, she is. Until it's proven otherwise she is a regular and 
> ordinary muggle.

She's a muggle who knows quite a lot about the WW so, no, she isn't 
a "regular" muggle.  Most muggles have no idea the WW even exists 
out of fairy tales.

> a_svirn:
> They took their nephew, because his life was endangered. We don't 
> know by the way whether they knew for sure that Harry was a wizard 
> at the time. Moreover, Dumbledore suggested that they should bring 
> him up as their own. I think to them it meant as muggle. 

And they did that.  Harry truly had no idea of his magical 
background until his 11th birthday.  They most certainly *did* know 
he was a Wizard.  Petunia and Vernon admit as much in SS/PS. (Keeper 
of the Keys)
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> I would say though that in 
> *our* world when you leave your child, or at any rate, a child you 
> are responsible for at other people's doorstep, you therefore 
> renounce any claim on him, don't you? 

First, we have no idea (yet) what was in the letter Dumbledore left 
the Dursleys tucked into Harry's blanket.  That one letter could 
clear up a lot IMO.  But, even if it isn't stated in the letter, 
Petunia, by way of her experience with Lily, knows that Harry will 
get a letter to Hogwarts on or around his 11th birthday.  So, if you 
think about it, he wasn't *abandoned* there, he was placed into 
their (foster?)care until he could take his rightful place in the 
WW.  Big difference.
> 
> PJ:
> Dumbledore didn't insist on visitation rights even 
> though as head of the Wizangamott he probably had the authority.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Had he though? I was under the impression that he took the task of 
> arranging Harry's future upon himself without consulting any 
> authorities. 

Dumbledore *is* the authorities!  He's head of the WW!  I think that 
would probably give him all he'd require, don't you? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> This is certainly true. Even though we don't know just how free 
was 
> that choice.  The long and short of it however, that they did give 
> him a houseroom and by doing so have kept him alive for nearly 
> sixteen years. The least Dumbledore could do under the 
circumstances 
> is to keep his contempt for himself.

On the night of Dumbledore's visit to the Dursleys in HBP he states 
quite clearly that they *willingly* agreed to take Harry in and 
neither Petunia nor Vernon contradict him.  I'd say that cinches it 
since neither would let that slide if they'd felt forced into it.  
And yes, they kept him alive for 16 years but we don't yet know what 
they got out of the bargain.  If it was a FC they also could've been 
protected from DEs and Voldermort by having him there.

All in all their involvement with the WW is the direct result of the 
decision they made when they took baby Harry into their home.  Now, 
like it or not, they have to live with it.

PJ








From ornawn at 013.net  Tue Nov 15 21:17:42 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:17:42 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
Message-ID: <dldj9m+cgq4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143069

>Steve/bboyminn:
>Just one problem, how is Snape EVER going to get Harry to trust him?
>Even if he acts anonymously, how can he possibly convey information 
to
>Harry in a way that Harry will trust?

Orna:
I don't know how, but in some way, there is a forerunner to this 
problem in HBP. It's interesting, that when Harry doesn't know the 
help comes from Snape, he is quite eager to learn it ? even in his 
free time. When did we see Harry learning anything (besides 
Quidditch), with such enthusiasm? After all, Snape managed to teach 
Harry quite a lot through this book. But I doubt JKR will use the 
same line. Just want to emphasize, that I agree, that Snape is the 
most talented "friend" Harry will need to be able to do his task.

Orna









From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 15 21:46:37 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:46:37 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ad01c5ea2e$0f1162c0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 143070

bboyminn:

 Once in the Dumbledore camp, and now as a long time adult, Snape saw a
world that
was very different from his school days. An adult world in which
people respected him for his skill and ability. Suddenly as an adult,
he was getting the respect he never got as a kid, and from the very
people he thought never would or could respect him. 

Conclusion; Snape really did join Dumbledore's camp; he finally felt
trusted, respected, and accepted. 


Sherry now:
Trusted and respected by whom?  The quickness with which his
colleagues--except Hagrid--were ready to accept Harry's word on the death of
Dumbledore doesn't seem to indicate that he was trusted and respected by his
fellow teachers.  It seemed that they had all, like the rest of us, accepted
Snape on the strength of Dumbledore's word alone.  They all seemed to be
ready to dump him like a hot rock, as soon as they heard what Harry said.
As someone in the pro Snape camp said ages ago, nobody even said anything
like, but Harry you must be wrong.  They bought it very quickly, as if they
were disposed to believe the worst of him.

bboyminn:

So, Snape is well aware that in destroying Dumbledore, Snape has
destroyed himself  even under the best of circumstances. I think this
is evident in Snape's reaction to being called a coward by Harry. If
Harry only knew the level of courage Snape had just shown. If Harry
only knew just how much Snape had sacrificed for the sake of
Dumbledore's Grand Plan, Harry could never call him a coward. 


Sherry now:

Yes, it must take a great deal of sacrifice, bravery and honor to kill an
innocent, unarmed old man.  Right.  i can see how much courage such an act
might take.  Is this really the message that JKR will be sending, that it is
ok to kill a helpless unarmed person for the so-called greater good?  Ugh.
i find that a horrendous concept.  I'm saying that the murder of someone who
is seemingly helpless at the moment for the greater good is a despicable
idea to me.  And I hope that is not what JKR will do.  It was not a matter
of Snape fighting for his life against a powerful opponent or anything of
the sort.  He walked out and shot first so to speak.  i just don't see how
that can ever be an act of courage.


bboyminn:

To the last point, while I have no proof or even sound indications, I
think Snape will be instrumental in helping Harry. The Horcrux task is
near impossible, even when we factor in things like one of the
Horcruxes being at Grimmauld Place. I really don't see Harry having
either the skill or resources to find and destroy the Horcruxes, so I
can only conclude that he will get some substantial outside help from
somewhere. The only available candidate for that level of help is Snape. 



sherry:

We do not know for sure that Snape knows about the horcruxes.  Dumbledore
didn't confide in people.  He told Harry not to tell anyone but his two best
friends.  I'm not so sure he ever confided in Snape, and in spite of many
fans inclination to see Dumbledore and Snape as having a tight friendship,
and Snape as a confidante, JKR has said Dumbledore had no confidante.

Sherry




From hphgrwlca at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 22:33:07 2005
From: hphgrwlca at yahoo.com (hphgrwlca)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:33:07 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlbav2+bkbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldnn3+bap9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143071

So if we all agree that a boggart can do magic to some extent, this is 
my question: as the boggart is an animal in its purest form, and 
therefore in its purest form has limited intelligence, how will it be 
able to perform any sort of magic requiring human knowledge, even if 
it takes on the shape of a human?  So it can turn into a being with 
the *power* to perform magic, but will it have the 
intelligence/knowledge necessary to do so?

Christine






From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Nov 15 22:43:37 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (Michele)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:43:37 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5ea2e$0f1162c0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dldoap+1146b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143072

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at e...> 
wrote:
 > 
> We do not know for sure that Snape knows about the horcruxes.  
Dumbledore
> didn't confide in people.  He told Harry not to tell anyone but his 
two best
> friends.  I'm not so sure he ever confided in Snape, and in spite of 
many
> fans inclination to see Dumbledore and Snape as having a tight 
friendship,
> and Snape as a confidante, JKR has said Dumbledore had no confidante.
> 
> Sherry

colebiancardi:  I don't know if Snape knows about the horcruxes, but 
since he is the DADA teacher & he also knows a lot about the Dark 
Arts, I don't think it is a stretch to state he probably does know 
about them.  However, the confiding bit - I was rereading HBP and I 
noticed that when DD was telling Harry about Voldy's 7 horcruxes, the 
portraits were listening in and paying attention.  So, the portraits 
do know about the horcruxes & everything DD & Harry spoke about that 
evening about Voldemort.  So, since they(the portraits) serve the 
headmaster(or in this case, headmistress) of Hogwarts, will McGonagall 
find out about Harry's quest thru them?

colebiancardi








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 23:56:36 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:56:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dldk8i+dr31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldsjk+7asv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143073

Geoff:
> '"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," 
said 
> Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"
> "You /knew/? said Harry. "You /knew/ I'm a - a wizard?"
> "Knew!" shrieked Aunt Petunia suddenly. "/Knew/! Of course we 
> knew!..."'
> 
> (ibid. pp.43-44)
> 
> QED.

a_svirn:
I don't think it demonstrates what you want it to demonstrate, 
actually. The full quote goes as follows: "Knew! Of course we knew! 
How could you not be, my dratted sister being what she was? Oh, she 
got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school-
and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn, 
turning teacups into rats." It would appear that Petunia didn't know 
for sure from the beginning, but realized soon enough, by making 
comparisons with her sister. You will have noticed that she didn't 
refer to the letter, when she said she knew. 

PJ:
> First, we have no idea (yet) what was in the letter Dumbledore 
left 
> the Dursleys tucked into Harry's blanket.  That one letter could 
> clear up a lot IMO.  

a_svirn:
So it could. But we do have some idea, don't we. Dumbledore 
explicitly said that he had explained about Harry's parents' murder 
and had expressed hope that they would raise him as their own. 

PJ:
But, even if it isn't stated in the letter, 
> Petunia, by way of her experience with Lily, knows that Harry will 
> get a letter to Hogwarts on or around his 11th birthday.  So, if 
you 
> think about it, he wasn't *abandoned* there, he was placed into 
> their (foster?)care until he could take his rightful place in the 
> WW.  Big difference.

a_svirn:
So what if she knew. Her own parents were ecstatic about having a 
witch in the family and let Lilly go to Hogwarts. She, on the other 
hand, wasn't going to be so tolerant about such nonsense. Aren't 
parents, even foster parents, entitled to make that kind of 
decisions?

PJ:
> Dumbledore *is* the authorities!  He's head of the WW!

a_svirn
I beg your pardon? 

PJ:
> On the night of Dumbledore's visit to the Dursleys in HBP he 
states 
> quite clearly that they *willingly* agreed to take Harry in and 
> neither Petunia nor Vernon contradict him.

a_svirn:
I don't recall him stating anything of the sort. 

PJ:
And yes, they kept him alive for 16 years but we don't yet know what 
> they got out of the bargain.  If it was a FC they also could've 
been 
> protected from DEs and Voldermort by having him there.

a_svirn:
If they need a protection from Voldemort it only because they agreed 
to adopt Harry. It is not the protection they got out of the 
bargain, but on the contrary got their lives endangered INTO the 
bargain. 







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 00:06:02 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:06:02 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5ea2e$0f1162c0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dldt5a+vvn9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143074

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at e...>
wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> 
> Once in the Dumbledore camp, ... as a ..adult,... very
> different from his school days. An adult world in which 
> people respected him for his skill and ability. Suddenly 
> as an adult, he was getting the respect he never got as a 
> kid, and from the very people he thought never would or could 
> respect him. 
> 
> Conclusion; Snape really did join Dumbledore's camp; he finally
> felt trusted, respected, and accepted. 
> 
> 
> Sherry now:
> Trusted and respected by whom?  The quickness with which his
> colleagues--except Hagrid--were ready to accept Harry's word 
> on the death of Dumbledore doesn't seem to indicate that he was
> trusted and respected by his fellow teachers. It seemed that they
> had all, like the rest of us, accepted Snape on the strength of 
> Dumbledore's word alone.  ...
> 

bboyminn:

Agreed, believe it or not. First, I was talking of about 14-15 years
ago when Snape was first in Dumbledores' camp. On Dumbledore's word,
others SHOWED Snape trust, respect, and acceptance. Whether it was
genuine and heartfelt is irrelevant; it was at least displayed to
Snape in deference to Dumbledore.

But that was certainly more respect and acceptance than he could have
ever possibly gotten from the back-stabbing status-seeking Death
Eaters, or from the manipulative and merciless Voldemort. 


> bboyminn:
> 
> So, Snape is well aware that in destroying Dumbledore, Snape has
> destroyed himself even under the best of circumstances. I think this
> is evident in Snape's reaction to being called a coward by Harry. If
> Harry only knew the level of courage Snape had just shown. If Harry
> only knew just how much Snape had sacrificed for the sake of
> Dumbledore's Grand Plan, Harry could never call him a coward. 
> 
> 
> Sherry now:
> 
> Yes, it must take a great deal of sacrifice, bravery and honor 
> to kill an innocent, unarmed old man. Right. i can see how much
> courage such an act might take. ... Ugh. i find that a horrendous 
> concept.  ... i just don't see howthat can ever be an act of 
> courage.
> 

bboyminn:

War, that is your answer. War is a failing of mankind; an utter social
and moral failing. In wartime, the best of us are force to do horrible
things that go against our very nature, yet we do them for the greater
good, and sometimes we are called heroes for it. Keep in mind, the way
you determine the heroes from the villian is usually by no more than
which side won.

But at the same time you are right. Snape killing Dumbledore is a
horrible repugnant thing, and Snape knows it, and that was his
sacrifice. To do something that was so horrible and repugnant because
the alternative was total disaster. Think about what would have
happened on the Tower if Snape has chosen any other course of action.
I suspect many more would have died including Dumbledore. Alternate
courses of action do not save Dumbledore and they do not serve the
fight against Voldemort.

Snape, horrible and repulsive as it may have been, chose the path of
least resistance and the path of least damage. He ended the seige and
got Draco and the Death Eaters out of the Castle, and did so with
minimal damage. 

I say that Snape is well aware that he has done something horrible,
repulsive, and repugnant. Something for which, even with the very best
possible justification, the wizard world will never forgive him for.
It's entirely possible that Snape expect to die if he is caught by
Auror. In his mind, a 'good' outcome would be life in Azkaban. He
certainly can't believe he will ever escape punishment. And that is
his sacrifice, to know that he destroyed himself in order to minimize
damage in the moment and maximize the potential for victory in the
future. 

Snape is well aware how you and the wizard world feel about him. But
he did the best he could under very difficult circumstances. I don't
believe it was Dumbledore or even Snape's own desire that killed
Dumbledore, it was a set of circumstances that none of them could
escape. He chose the best possible outcome in a situation in which all
possible outcomes ended in disaster. He simply chose the one disaster
that ultimately, in the long run, served the greatest good. 


> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> To the last point, ..., I think Snape will be instrumental in 
> helping Harry. The Horcrux task is near impossible, ... I can 
> only conclude that he will get some substantial outside help 
> from somewhere. The only available candidate for that level of
> help is Snape. 
> 
> 
> 
> sherry:
> 
> We do not know for sure that Snape knows about the horcruxes.  ...
> 
> Sherry
>

bboyminn:

Well, if Snape doesn't know then Harry is screwed bigtime. Certainly
Draco is in no position to help him. I can't imagine Lucius helping
Harry or the Order. It's either Snape or it's no one.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn







From sheria_mccool at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 19:12:25 2005
From: sheria_mccool at yahoo.com (sheria_mccool)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:12:25 -0000
Subject: A contract is a contract is a contract.
In-Reply-To: <dl7sg1+8v5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldbup+nvl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143075

Contract or no contract, Harry was still their nephew. One would think
that common decency would dictate that they take care of their own.
Yet they showed little to no, care nor respect for Harry. They may
have kept a roof over his head but that was the extent of their
kindness. To them he was no more than an irritation. Personally I
think there must be something more, as there always is. Because of
Dumbledore's howler "Remember my first". Evidentially Petunia and
Dumbledore have some kind of arrangement. Contract or no Harry is
still family to her and that does not excuse treating the last
remaining member of her extended family (as far as we know) like
garbage beneath her feet.

As for Dudley getting attacked and so on can any one really think of a
time besides the dementors that he did not perpetuate his own
situation? Each time he was the instigator of the attacks, or at least
hand some hand in what was happening to him. No one can call that
spoiled rotten bully, innocent by any means.  One can not expect not
to get burnt if they are playing with fire.  In the SS he pushed Harry
and ended up behind glass, that was innocent and Harry did not really
know that he had powers at that time. As for Hagrid putting a pig tail
on Dudley, seriously he did deserve that. He stole Harry's birthday
cake was `pigging' out on it, and took the cake with out even asking.
Personally I think the kid got what he deserved. He was a thief and a
overindulged overeater, his parented needed a good kick in the butt. 

Now Fred and George went a little over board when they left the
"Ton-Tongue Toffee" there for Dudley. But if the kid was not such a
pig then he would not have eaten it. Dudley is always stuffing his
face with candy and food. Can we not see that the two times that he
has gotten into serious trouble that has caused a charm, spell, or
hospital stay on him that he has been shoving food into his mouth. 
The Dementor attack Harry tried to save him from but the brat tried to
run from Harry and therefore brought the Dementors down on him. That
was not the dark wizard either if you will remember that was Umbridge.
So you can hardly say that Dumbledore is not upholding a contract if
the good guys are against them also sending Dementors to privet drive.
Also if you will remember he had the neighbor there for heaven knows
how long watching Harry. Who is to say that woman has not been there
his whole life and that she just has never been mentioned before. 

I think that Dumbledore did what he and to do. Petunia and her hate
for her sister being a witch (or maybe that is jealousy), and her lack
of a backbone when it comes to dictating anything to her husband or
son, has left her nephew as an outsider and unwanted. We just have at
least to thank that he did not turn out demented like Voldemort. 

As for Voldemort attacking the Dursley's I doubt that it would have
been a thought in her head. For all she knew he was gone. More so he
was not even a blip on her radar. So why would she have fear of a
wizard named Voldemort, if she did not believe in the WW and thought
her sister got what she deserved. Does not make much sense, does it?
So either it is all a ruse and she has lied her whole life and she
does believe in the WW and fear all of its evil or some theories are
far off. It cannot be both ways. Then again I could be wrong. But that
is my two senses on it. 

Sheria_McCool









From casteldenisip at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 00:01:30 2005
From: casteldenisip at yahoo.com (ioana)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5ea2e$0f1162c0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <20051116000130.83166.qmail@web33113.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143076

sherry:

We do not know for sure that Snape knows about the horcruxes.  Dumbledore
didn't confide in people.  He told Harry not to tell anyone but his two best
friends.  I'm not so sure he ever confided in Snape, and in spite of many
fans inclination to see Dumbledore and Snape as having a tight friendship,
and Snape as a confidante, JKR has said Dumbledore had no confidante.


Ioana:
I think Dumbledore and Snape had a plan, i find it hard to believe that he was wrong to trust Snape. By killing DD, Snape will gain Voldemort's trust and he will be able to get closer to him and learn more about his plans. If Snape was really a DE, why would he let Harry Potter use his book (I'm sure he knew that HP was lying when he showed him Ron's book).

  Hi everybody, my name is Ioana and i'm a new member of your group.
  





From queenliliukalani at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 00:09:21 2005
From: queenliliukalani at yahoo.com (queenliliukalani)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:09:21 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <20051115080459.50589.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dldtbi+tu3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143077

Lupinlore:
> > Well, he's a child abuser.  What's not to hate?

Irene: 
> You know,  you should prepare for a massive
> disappointment. :-)
> If JKR punishes Snape in any way close to what you
> anticipate, it will be for murdering Dumbledore, for
> his role in the deaths of Potters or maybe Sirius,
> possibly for some yet undisclosed things, but his
> teaching methods won't be on of them, I'm ready to bet
> the farm on it.
>  She's upped the ante in book 6, the game is very
> different now. All our arguments about what kind of
> teacher Snape is are so passe. :-)


I am no Snape lover be any stretch of the imagination. He is evil 
beyond words, dislikes the students he teachs unless they are in his 
own house,and lets face it Alan Rickman plays Snape so well in the 
movies as only he can do. BUT I do believe that in the end he will 
save Harry's life and finally repay his debt of honor to Harry's 
father James,and by doing so possibly die in the proccess.
this is just my Humble opinion.  

"queenliliukalani"






From maliksthong at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 01:02:14 2005
From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:02:14 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldt5a+vvn9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dle0em+qore@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143078

<snip>

> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, if Snape doesn't know then Harry is screwed bigtime. Certainly
> Draco is in no position to help him. I can't imagine Lucius helping
> Harry or the Order. It's either Snape or it's no one.
> 
> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>


Chys:

Not entirely true. Arthur Weasley can confiscate certain items on 
Harry's word, to help him in his Horcrux hunt. He's tried in book 6 
too, hasn't he? When Harry set him on Malfoy. He doesn't have to 
know -about- them being horcruxes to get them for Harry. Snape would 
be an advantage on Harry's side though.


Chys







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 00:06:18 2005
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:06:18 -0000
Subject: All of a Piece (was re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dlcvlv+pfm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldt5q+73ev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143079

Lupinlore:
 <snip>
>After all, 
> from what does all this issue of trust and power arise, if not Snape 
> and his daily attitudes toward Harry?  That is the root of much of 
> the tragedy that has befallen the side of light recently.  Sirius' 
> death, Harry's failure to master occlumency, the absolute meltdown 
> at the end of HBP, all spring in part or in whole from Snape's 
> interactions with Harry. And as I say, if Snape isn't punished for 
> the way he's abused Harry, then JKR is a very poor writer indeed 
> with no idea of how to craft a well-written and satisfactory story.

Montavilla: 
I really don't see how Sirius's death can be traced to any interaction between Harry and 
Snape unless you mean Harry not going to Snape with his vision about Sirius (which is 
more of a non-interaction than an interaction).

Lupinlore:
> I don't doubt there are a lot of other factors to be weighed, and a 
> lot of things Snape has to answer for.  But I deny that they can be 
> separated out into "Well, we can punish Snape for the Potters but 
> not for hating Harry," or "We can punish Snape for Dumbledore but 
> not his teaching methods."  These factors are so deeply interrelated 
> that it is impossible to weigh and judge one without weighing and 
> judging them all.  And if, as Alla particularly likes to theorize -- 
> and I think theorize well --  the type of punishment likely to be 
> manifest in the end is that of karmic retribution and poetic 
> justice, then it is almost inevitable that it will be determined by 
> Snape's entire gestalt of interactions and personality, including 
> fairly obviously his daily attitudes and actions and, yes, teaching 
> methods.

Montavilla:

Suddenly, I have a vision of Snape being killed by a crowd of eleven-year-students, 
surrounding him like Children of the Corn, chanting, "Stopped death!  Stopper death!"  
before throwing him into a giant cauldron....
 









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 15 22:13:50 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:13:50 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dldmiu+sfsa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143080

Steve wrote:
<SNIP>
> I think Snape very much resent being placed in the 'Judas' 
> role. In killing Dumbledore, Snape has set the wizard world 
> against him for all time. Even if Snape can come up with a 
> reasonable explanation of the circumstances, in the end, the 
> wizard world will never forgive him.
> So, Snape is well aware that in destroying Dumbledore, Snape 
> has destroyed himself even under the best of circumstances. 
> I think this is evident in Snape's reaction to being called a 
> coward by Harry. If Harry only knew the level of courage Snape 
> had just shown. If Harry only knew just how much Snape had 
> sacrificed for the sake of Dumbledore's Grand Plan, Harry 
> could never call him a coward. 

Lupinlore:
Oh dear, and here is the VERY thing that I think a lot of us 
(well, some of us anyway) find so hard to swallow about DDM!Snape.  
In his nobility and suffering, his bravery and willingness to 
destroy himself for Dumbledore's Grand Plan, he in effect becomes 
the hero of the series and Harry simply becomes a plot device, a 
way to set up the scene for Severus to undergo apotheosis and, 
Christ-like, crucify himself so that others might live.  And 
Harry can only watch in awe with tears streaming down his cheeks 
as waves of shame and humiliation at how he has misunderstood the 
noble Snape and the wonderful, wise plan of Dumbledore course 
through his unworthy body.  In awe, he bows his head in reverence 
and decides to dedicate his life to preserving the memory of 
Severus Snape, the hero whose bravery and decisions brought down 
Voldemort.

Nauseating, ain't it?


Steve:
<SNIP>
> I do believe that Snape, miserable a person as he is, is still 
> working Dumbledore Grand Plan, and is willing to continue to 
> work it regardless of the consequences to himself. Ultimately, 
> in the end, Snape will prove his worth. Though whether he will 
> live or die in the process is hard to determine. In one sense, 
> it would be a mercy for Snape to die redeeming himself. Like I 
> said, even with redemption and a REALLY good explanation, the 
> wizard world will never forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore.


Lupinlore:
And once again, the noble and Christ-like Severus takes up his 
cross, bearing the pain of rejection and humiliation so that 
James' unworthy son might rise to the heights of glory.  "Ah, 
forgive them readers, they know not what they do," he murmurs 
as he accepts his lot for the good of the Wizarding World.


Steve: 
> Some very critical points regarding Harry and the Dark Arts. 
> Yes, Harry has tried to use the Unforgivable Curses. I can't 
> help but wonder what JKR is up to with that. Is she simply 
> trying to show Harry as a flawed Hero? Is she forshadowing 
> something important? Enquiring minds want to know.

Lupinlore:
Do I hear strains of "Long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far away?"  
Of course, Harry hasn't completed his training as a Jedi... err, 
wizard, with Yoda... err, Dumbledore, so he may fall into the 
grip of the Dark Side... err, Dark Arts, unless he submits 
himself to the discipline of Hogwarts Jedi Academy... err, School 
of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Steve:
> To some extent I blame Harry use of the Unforgivables on the
> incredibly poor training he has been given. If I had a kid that 
> I knew would have to face a terrible fate, I would have started 
> training him specifically to face that fate. <snip>


Lupinlore:
Uh huh.  Of course, after all of that, it isn't skills that are 
going to save him, but love.  Or maybe DD should have given him 
lessons in aggressive projection of affect (APOA in wizarding 
military terminology).


Steve: 
> Lately, I've been fantasizing that McGonagall will ask Harry 
> to continue the D.A. Club in the next book. Not necessarily 
> to come to Hogwarts as a student or a formal teacher, but to 
> simply drop by once a week and teach the D.A. Club. 
<snip>

Lupinlore:
That's a good plot hook.  I could see it happening easily.


Steve: 
> To the last point, while I have no proof or even sound 
> indications, I think Snape will be instrumental in helping 
> Harry. <snip>I really don't see Harry having either the skill 
> or resources to find and destroy the Horcruxes, 
<snip>.


Lupinlore:
My goodness, you don't have much faith in our hero, do you?

Steve:
> The only available candidate for that level of help is Snape. 


Lupinlore:
And so, having been given as a perfect offering for the life of 
the wizarding world, Our Lord and Savior Severus Snape comes 
forward to lift the unworthy and wormlike wretch Harry Potter 
into salvation, forgiving him his sins and ignorance and leading 
him through the Valley of the Shadow of Voldemort, where he 
shall fear no Horcrux, for his wand and his guidance shall 
comfort him, and surely Harry shall know his own ignorance and unworthiness for the rest of his days.

Lupinlore.









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 16 03:03:41 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:03:41 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <20051114233606.75927.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dle7id+10gdr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143081

CH3ed:
> 3. Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' cellar? 
I guess we won't hear any story about it as it doesn't seem 
significant. I'm just curious of the story behind it.

Ceridwen:
I'll try another take on this one, though there have been a lot of good 
guesses already:

Students made it to get into the candy shop, or through the candy shop 
into Hogsmeade and out of Hogwarts.

Which makes me wonder if any of the DEs had ever used it as children?  
I doubt if the Marauders made the passage, I got the impression it was 
one they found and mapped.  So, when was it made?  Who used it 
originally?  Did others use it after that?  When did it stop being 
used, if it ever had been, by other than the Marauders?

Ceridwen.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 03:43:15 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:43:15 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dldsjk+7asv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dle9sj+4cm8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143082

> PJ:
> > Dumbledore *is* the authorities!  He's head of the WW!
> 
> a_svirn
> I beg your pardon? 

Alla:

May I ask why are you surprised? Dumbledore is the Head of  the 
Wizengamot, no?

 

> a_svirn:
> If they need a protection from Voldemort it only because they 
agreed 
> to adopt Harry. It is not the protection they got out of the 
> bargain, but on the contrary got their lives endangered INTO the 
> bargain.
>


Alla:

Erm... Voldemort  and company does not like muggles, you know, ANY 
muggles. I think that it was well demonstrated  in GoF and in the 
beginning of HBP in chapter 1. Muggles ARE in danger now, so yeah, 
IF Dursleys got an extra protection as payment of "caring" for 
Harry, I'd say they got a sweet deal for themselves.

Now, of course if you want to measure quantitavely, they could be in 
MORE danger with Harry in their house than without him, I guess, but 
it is all relative, don't you think? They are just as likely to be 
killed if they never took Harry.

What I am trying to say that with war started Dursleys are in 
danger, Harry or no Harry.

JMO,

Alla






From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 03:27:12 2005
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)
In-Reply-To: <dldtbi+tu3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051116032713.289.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143083

queenliliukalani <queenliliukalani at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am no Snape lover by any stretch of the imagination. He is 
> evil beyond words, dislikes the students he teaches unless they 
> are in his own house <snip> BUT I do believe that in the end he 
> will save Harry's life and finally repay his debt of honor to 
> Harry's father James, and by doing so possibly die in the 
> process. This is just my Humble opinion.  


I think this is probably the way the book will turn out. No matter 
what Snape does in the fight against Voldemort he won't ever be a 
good man. He will merely be a minorly evil man. There is a tendency 
among HP fans to think that all good people will fight Voldemort 
and all evil people will support Voldemort.
   
  Snape can easily he in the defeat of Voldemort and still be 
throughly evil.
   
  Joe





From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov 16 03:44:27 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:44:27 -0500
Subject: Harry @ Hogwarts for Year VII, was RE: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry 
In-Reply-To: <1132096536.962.39204.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAOQmE1w1bPUeVlGsj5MJxOgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143084

>>bboyminn:
Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and 
resources. If he had a full complement of Charms, Spells, Curses, 
and Counter-Curses, and finely honed skills, he wouldn't have to 
resort to Unforgivables. Given that all he has to work with are 
schoolyard bullying jinxes and the Unforgivables with nothing 
practical inbetween, they have really left Harry kind of 
powerless. When schoolyard jinxes and curses aren't enough, Harry 
has no were to go but to the dark and unforgivable. <<<


That's why I think, in spite of his statement at the end of HBP, 
Harry will return to Hogwarts; there is a lot that he has to 
learn, which he can only (or best) learn there.  Aside from 
anything else, he hasn't learned nonvocal spellcasting.

I do think that rather than coming back as a regular NEWTS 
student, he'll come back as a 'special', taking a specially-
designed curriculum of group classes and private tutorials 
tailored to his specific needs.  Later, assuming that he and 
the Wizardling establishment survive, he can go back and do 
his NEWT-prep.


Bruce







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 16 04:43:33 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:43:33 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldmiu+sfsa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dleddl+36dd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143085



Lupinlore wrote:
I don't doubt there are a lot of other factors to be weighed, and a
lot of things Snape has to answer for. <snip>These factors are so
deeply interrelated that it is impossible to weigh and judge one
without weighing and judging them all. And if, as Alla particularly
likes to theorize -- and I think theorize well -- the type of
punishment likely to be manifest in the end is that of karmic
retribution and poetic justice, then it is almost inevitable that it
will be determined by Snape's entire gestalt of interactions and
personality, including fairly obviously his daily attitudes and
actions and, yes, teaching methods.

Valky:
The above is from another section of this thread but I would like to
add my comments here to save postage <g> 

I must agree with you, Lupinlore on Alla's angle of approaching Snape
redemption. It has always made perfect sense to me, IMO, the only
redemption scenario that properly encompasses the entirety of Snapes
misdeeds throughout the books would be in him offering Harry a sincere
humble and genuine remorse, and Harry forgiving him.


LOL :D I predict Lupinlore might say I have too much a penchant for
ordering extra cheese with corncakes. But there you have it. It's the
most Karmic, poetic thing I can think of and I am dead certain it will
happen.



>
> Steve wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > I think Snape very much resent being placed in the 'Judas' 
> > role. In killing Dumbledore, Snape has set the wizard world 
> > against him for all time. Even if Snape can come up with a 
> > reasonable explanation of the circumstances, in the end, the 
> > wizard world will never forgive him.
> > So, Snape is well aware that in destroying Dumbledore, Snape 
> > has destroyed himself even under the best of circumstances. 
> > I think this is evident in Snape's reaction to being called a 
> > coward by Harry. If Harry only knew the level of courage Snape 
> > had just shown. If Harry only knew just how much Snape had 
> > sacrificed for the sake of Dumbledore's Grand Plan, Harry 
> > could never call him a coward. 
> 
> Lupinlore:
> Oh dear, and here is the VERY thing that I think a lot of us 
> (well, some of us anyway) find so hard to swallow about DDM!Snape.  
> In his nobility and suffering, his bravery and willingness to 
> destroy himself for Dumbledore's Grand Plan, he in effect becomes 
> the hero of the series and Harry simply becomes a plot device, a 
> way to set up the scene for Severus to undergo apotheosis and, 
> Christ-like, crucify himself so that others might live.  

Valky:
You make a strong point there Lupinlore, and naturally I agree, we
can't reduce Harry to the division of plot device for Snape's
apotheosis. OTOH I see Steve's point in an entirely different light to
that, he is relating strictly to Snape's point of view, in which Snape
is the Universal centre. It goes to the argument of his candidacy for
redemption at the close of the series that he pivots on some point of
nobility. The canon on Snape backs his inclination to actions of
nobility, while clearly demonstrating his error in comprehending the
same. POA is the ultimate example of this. Hence as far as we can
measure Snape himself, it's valid to suppose that the tower was a
moment of extraordinary valour for him, a great sacrifice within the
framework of his character direction. We keep that in perspective by
then qualifying that it's a peripheral sacrifice within the scope of
the whole story, it's not the ultimate one, and Snape is not *the*
Hero, just heroic.

IMO, what we have here is a Snape who aspires to iconic nobility - but
fails to comprehend it. Within that I see the hypothesis that Steve
and Jen have put forward as entirely plausible. And I don't,
personally, doubt their ability to keep a firm reign on the
perspective that we are dealing with in saying so. 

While keeping that perspective we can further say that Snape probably
has a great deal of trouble comprehending whatever nobility there
might be to his actions on the tower. I mean, as Steve pointed out, it
ain't gonna win him and Order of Merlin, is it? Snape seems to be
determined to measure his worth by these tokens, while clearly the
other party involved in the tower scene feels quite the opposite about
those things (ie as long as they don't take me off the Chocolate frog
cards). 

 
Valky








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 16 04:58:00 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:58:00 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlee8o+ftet@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143086

bboyminn: 
> Here is where I don't agree, though I admit I can't prove my
> position. JKR was very careful to make sure we could not determine
> Snape's true allegiance. Personally, I think Snape was bluffing
> when the told Narcissa that he knew the details of the Dark Lord's
> plan. Thinking that the Dark Lord wanted to kill Dumbledore wasn't
> much of a stretch though; everyone pretty well knew that. I think 
> Snape said that he knew to get Narcissa to open up and give him
> more details. 

Jen: I'm not sure it matters either way, because like you said, the 
idea that Voldemort would want Harry's primary protector out of the 
way is a given. Combine that with the idea Voldemort planted Snape 
at Hogwarts 16 years ago to have an insider available to kill 
Dumbledore, and the machine was operational long before the night of 
the UV (speculation there). 

Dumbledore probably guessed once Voldemort was unable to retrieve 
the prophecy, he would go back to his pre-vapor agenda, which likely 
had "kill Dumbledore" at the top of the list. 

bboyminn:
> I also don't believe that Snape and Dumbledore had a specific
> detailed plan. <snip> I think on a more general level Snape and
> Dumbledore had discussions in which Dumbledore emphasized that the
> Plan to defeat Voldemort was more important than Dumbledore's
> life, and that if the situation should arise, Snape should choose
> his actions for the good of the long term Plan rather than the
> good of the moment. So, no conspiracy, but a general understanding.

Jen: At a bare minimum they knew Voldemort was going to expect Snape 
to earn his keep at some point. Voldemort didn't hear the prophecy, 
but he did learn very useful information at the MOM--Dumbledore was 
not planning to kill him. Whether he concluded Dumbledore knew about 
the horcruxes or was simply losing his touch, Voldemort likely 
viewed it as a weakness he could exploit.

In fact, I'd even conjecture Dumbledore showed his hand to Voldemort 
at the MOM, in hopes of diverting attention from Harry for as long 
as possible.

Steve:
> That puts Snape in a very awkward position. Does he ask Draco if
> he is interested in the protection Dumbledore offerred him, and
> thereby risk revealing his own disloyalty to the Dark Lord; or
> does he just let the situation ride and thereby allow Draco to 
> truly go over to the Dark Side? Something that at the moment, I
> don't think Draco is real eager to do. But Draco is also caught
> between a rock and a hard place; does he trust Snape enough to
> confess that he wants out? 

Jen: That's a very interesting thought. Snape didn't overhear 
Dumbledore's offer and Draco wouldn't risk telling him about it, 
believing Snape to be on Voldemort's side. So how can Snape really 
protect Draco? Undoubtedly Lucius will be out of Azkaban and 
expecting a father/son DE reunion, which also complicates matters. 
Hmmm, no ideas on this one. Unless Lucius and Narciss have had 
enough? It's one thing to torture other people, but they all got a 
taste of what Voldemort is willing to do to his supporters, and 
perhaps it was enough to think about Plan B. Lucius never struck me 
as someone sold on the whole Voldemort returning bit anyway.

Steve/bboyminn: 
> Plus, if he really intends to work Dumbledore's plan, his position
> amoung the Death Eaters is also dangerously precarious. Before
> Snape spent all his time at the school, and only had to pretent to
> be a DE for a meeting now and then. Now Snape will have to spend
> all his time hiding from the Aurors, and associating with only the
> DE's and the Dark Lord. Snape is very much under a microscope now.
> The slightest misstep could mean the end for him. 

Jen: I wonder how the Occlumency will hold up under serious 
observation? And also, if anything that happened will make Snape's 
skills crack? He has to be a great compartmentalizer to be a superb 
Occlumens, but his two worlds clashed violently on the tower. 
Keeping emotions at bay, whatever they might be, will take greater 
effort. 

Steve bboyminn:
> So far, no one seems aware that Harry has used or attempted to use
> Unforgivables. I wonder what Ron and Hermione would say if they
> knew? 

"Harry you can't do that, you heard Moody, they'll send you to 
Azkaban! Dumbledore wouldn't want you to use Unforgiveables."

"Give him a break Hermione, he has to kill Volde....erm, him 
(Hermione rolls her eyes) and Snape deserved it! It's just too bad 
Harry didn't actually get one to work so Snape would be in Azkaban 
already."

Heh, just thought I'd give it a try.

Steve: 
> Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and 
> resources. If he had a full complement of Charms, Spells, Curses,
> and Counter-Curses, and finely honed skills, he wouldn't have to
> resort to Unforgivables. Given that all he has to work with are
> schoolyard bullying jinxes and the Unforgivables with nothing
> practical inbetween, they have really left Harry kind of
> powerless. When schoolyard jinxes and curses aren't enough, Harry
> has no were to go but to the dark and unforgivable. 

Jen:
Harry wants to make Bella and Snape pay for hurting the people he 
loved. Rage, pain, and vengeance are at the root of his use of 
Unforgiveables. You know, this thought reminds me of that scene in 
Dumbledore's office between Voldemort and DD:

"But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous 
pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, 
Dumbledore." 

"Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places." (chap. 20, p. 
444, Scholastic)

Harry resorting to Unforgiveables is looking in the 'wrong place' to 
solve his problem. Dumbledore told him several times where his power 
is, within himself, and his power is much stronger than Voldemort's 
type of magic. Harry just has to believe it, is all. Sort of like 
Dorothy clicking her heels and believing she will get back to Kansas 
<g>.

Jen






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 16 05:13:17 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:13:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
Message-ID: <BAY101-F172CBC5253634058593810915C0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143087



a_svirn:
>I don't think it demonstrates what you want it to demonstrate,
>actually. The full quote goes as follows: "Knew! Of course we knew!
>How could you not be, my dratted sister being what she was? Oh, she
>got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school-
>and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn,
>turning teacups into rats." It would appear that Petunia didn't know
>for sure from the beginning, but realized soon enough, by making
>comparisons with her sister. You will have noticed that she didn't
>refer to the letter, when she said she knew.

PJ:
Well, actually a_svirn, it continues with "Then she met that Potter at 
school and they left and got married and had you, and of course I knew you'd 
be just the same, just as strange, just as --- abnormal --- and then, if you 
please, she went and got herself blwown up and we got landed with you!"

So yes... Between your quote and the rest of it there is no doubt that 
Petunia *knew* Harry was a Wizard when she agreed to take him.  It's canon.

a_svirn:
>So it could. But we do have some idea, don't we. Dumbledore
>explicitly said that he had explained about Harry's parents' murder
>and had expressed hope that they would raise him as their own.

Yup.  That's what he said.  I'd expect that he had a carrot or two in that 
letter though.  He'd have had to in order to get 2 magic-phobic muggles to 
take in a Wizard child, wouldn't he?  I'd love to know what those carrots 
consisted of.  :-)

a_svirn:
>So what if she knew. Her own parents were ecstatic about having a
>witch in the family and let Lilly go to Hogwarts. She, on the other
>hand, wasn't going to be so tolerant about such nonsense. Aren't
>parents, even foster parents, entitled to make that kind of
>decisions?

She had 11 years to make those decisions but it wasn't meant to last 
forever.  Harry was always meant to rejoin the Wizarding World when he 
reached the age to attend Hogwarts.


PJ:
 > Dumbledore *is* the authorities!  He's head of the WW!
a_svirn
>I beg your pardon?

PJ:
Dumbledore, according to the Lexicon, held all these offices, as well as 
Headmaster of Hogwarts during the 11 years Harry was with the Dursleys.  As 
Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot (Wow! I really mangled that spelling my 
first time around) he was the leader of the Wizarding World... He was the 
head guy.  Even Fudge, the Minister of Magic, looked to him for the answers 
(OOtP pg 94 paragraph 1 Scholastic in case you're wondering)

*(Organizations & affiliations: Order of Merlin, First Class, and Grand 
Sorcerer; Founder and Secretkeeper, Order of the Phoenix (OP6); Supreme 
Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards (temporarily "voted 
out" OP5); Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot (temporarily demoted OP5). )

a_svirn:
>I don't recall him stating anything of the sort.

I wouldn't want you to think I was pulling arguements out of thin air simply 
for arguement's sake so here it is... "The magic I evoked fifteen years ago 
means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call this house 
'home'.  However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however 
badly treated, you have at least, grudgingly, allowed him houseroom."  (HBP 
pg 35 Scholastic)

a_svirn:
>If they need a protection from Voldemort it only because they agreed
>to adopt Harry. It is not the protection they got out of the
>bargain, but on the contrary got their lives endangered INTO the
>bargain.

Voldermort and his DE's have wiped out entire families before so what makes 
Petunia and Vernon so special?  So untouchable?  It's not as though muggles 
have been any safer against Voldermort and his DE's than magic folk... So 
many muggles have died during the wars that Fudge has to pay a  visit to the 
Muggle Prime Minister in order to explain what's going on.  What would make 
you think that the Dursleys,  family to the Potters (the cause of 
Voldermort's disappearance), would be unaffected by any DE raids even 
without their having taken Harry into their home?

Surely you'd have to agree, even if you don't believe it's probable, that 
it's still within the realm of possibility the DE's may have thought to wipe 
out the *entire* Potter/Dursley family in retribution for the loss of their 
leader?

PJ





From lealess at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 05:24:06 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:24:06 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldmiu+sfsa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlefpm+2j4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143088

Strangely enough, when justcarol67 was posting her comments, I was
thinking about JKR's assertion that she is "trying to subvert the
genre," a statement made in the July Time Magazine. I assumed she
meant, from the context of the article, subverting some sort of fairy
tale or maybe some kind of romantic fantasy novel -- but the only ones
I could think of which fit the bill were Disneyfied stories.  The
Potter story, on the other hand, seems a standard English 
bildungsroman (albeit mixed with hero quest elements), where an orphan
goes through cruel trials and emerges mature and wise, similar to
Great Expectations, where Pip finds out that he has been supported by
a convict all along, even though he assumed the eccentric Miss
Havisham was his benefactor, or Jane Eyre, where Jane at the end
accepts a difficult, to say the least, man, but only when she is sure
she is his equal (the two stories I remember off the top of my head).

Suppose JKR is truly aiming for subversion of the bildungsroman --
what would such a story look like?  It would be a story where the hero
fails to grow, fails to see the true value of others, fails to find
real love, and fails at the end to become a valuable member of
society.  This sounds like Snape's story so far, or Sirius Black's. 
Somehow, I doubt this is what she has planned for Harry.  Maybe he is
going to die instead of live; this would overturn the bildungsroman
pretty thoroughly.  Problem is, it would still suit an epic journey story.

Maybe JKR is subverting readers' expectations of her message, having
to do with choice and love.  Only sacrificial love measures up to the
gold standard in the books, and only if done for the Good.  Mother
love can be dubious.  Romantic love can weaken those it affects, but
probably only if they are going against predestination.  The love of
friends seems good, but doesn't hold up to Secret Keeping strains. 
There is love for the leader -- problematic.  I think it's safe to say
Rowling shows the social realist downside of love at least as often as
its mythic positive side.

Choice, or even the possibility of it, is also a scarce commodity in
the books.  The wizarding world is full of magical constraints: life
debts, unbreakable vows, DADA curses, goblet contracts, prophecies
which become effective through the action of one person only, the
sorting hat which students believe selects based on innate
character, even if JKR says it isn't so.  Then there are social
constraints: blood, family and class.  Character constraints seem a
minor thing to add to that list.

This author's undermining of the messages of love and choice is what
leads me to fear that Lupinlore might be correct, and the series is
about predetermined character trumping all other factors.  Harry has
accepted his preordained role, right?  No Hamlet he.  Sirius Black ...
well, he probably deserved it.  His choices didn't doom him, it was
the inate character that led him to make those choices.  As for Snape,
it was futile for him to even try to change his life if his fate was
set all along, as it surely must seem now.  This, to me, is
essentially a message of hopelessness, a message repeated by
underprivileged kids I see every day... but, it's very subversive
against the more "politically correct" messages which seek to free
people from social constraints that seem every bit as tenacious as
magical ones.

After HBP, frankly, I question the nature of JKR's message, assuming
there is one.

lealess







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 16 05:39:36 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:39:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dldsjk+7asv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlegmo+iutv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143089

a_svirn:
> If they need a protection from Voldemort it only because they
> agreed to adopt Harry. It is not the protection they got out of
> the bargain, but on the contrary got their lives endangered INTO
> the bargain.

PJ:
> Voldermort and his DE's have wiped out entire families before so
> what makes Petunia and Vernon so special? So untouchable? It's not
> as though muggles have been any safer against Voldermort and his
> DE's than magic folk...

Jen: Plus Dumbledore sent letters to Petunia prior to the letter 
left with Harry:

JKR: But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember 
my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because 
there were letters before that
 (website FAQ)

Despite Petunia's best efforts to keep the WW out of their lives, 
something prompted Dumbledore to write letters, plural, to her. 
Possibly he was informing her about the situation with Lily and 
James. Or possibly Dumbledore learned Voldemort planned to use 
Lily's Muggle sister as bait. Peter had to pass useful information 
to Voldemort for a year, and telling him about the existence of 
Petunia strikes me as valuable information.

Jen







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Wed Nov 16 07:43:38 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:43:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
Message-ID: <20051116074338.54479.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143090

lupinlore wrote:


> In his nobility and suffering, his bravery and
willingness to 
> destroy himself for Dumbledore's Grand Plan, he in
effect becomes 
> the hero of the series and Harry simply becomes a
plot device, a 
> way to set up the scene for Severus to undergo
apotheosis and, 
> Christ-like, crucify himself so that others might
live. 
> 
...
> And so, having been given as a perfect offering for
the life of 
> the wizarding world, Our Lord and Savior Severus
Snape comes 
> forward to lift the unworthy and wormlike wretch
Harry Potter 
> into salvation

The funny thing is, I remember people being very
sarcastic before HBP, when somebody speculated that
Snape might be the prince.
And the reasoning went along similar lines to what
your offer above: "You silly Snapefans, just accept it
- he is just a minor nuisance on Harry's hero journey,
he'll never be a central character in any of the
books".

Mind you, I don't think myself that Snape will share
the glory of Harry's victory - JKR hates him too much
for that; but the reasons which  bring you to the same
conclusion I don't find convincing. :-)

Irene


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 16 07:43:47 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:43:47 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dldsjk+7asv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlenvj+tjqh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143091

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
> Geoff:
> > '"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," 
> said 
> > Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"
> > "You /knew/? said Harry. "You /knew/ I'm a - a wizard?"
> > "Knew!" shrieked Aunt Petunia suddenly. "/Knew/! Of course we 
> > knew!..."'
> > 
> > (ibid. pp.43-44)
> > 
> > QED.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't think it demonstrates what you want it to demonstrate, 
> actually. The full quote goes as follows: "Knew! Of course we knew! 
> How could you not be, my dratted sister being what she was? Oh, she 
> got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school-
> and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn, 
> turning teacups into rats." It would appear that Petunia didn't 
know 
> for sure from the beginning, but realized soon enough, by making 
> comparisons with her sister. You will have noticed that she didn't 
> refer to the letter, when she said she knew. 

Geoff:
In your reply,you seem to have overlooked the fact that I quoted this 
exact piece of canon at the beginning of my post 143063, prior to the 
section you quoted above.

I would feel that, with Harry on the doorstep and Dumbeldore's letter 
tucked into the blankets, if she didn't realise this immediately, her 
wheels were turning rather slowly.....

It is possible that she may not have referred to the letter because 
it didn't cross her mind at that precise moment as she was giving an 
off-the-cuff answer in response to a comment made by Harry. 






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 07:49:58 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:49:58 -0000
Subject: ...Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry - Harry Skill.
In-Reply-To: <dlee8o+ftet@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dleob6+314q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143092

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:
> ...edited...
> 
> Steve: 
> > Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and 
> > resources. If he had a full complement of Charms, Spells, 
> > Curses, and Counter-Curses, and finely honed skills, he 
> > wouldn't have to resort to Unforgivables. ... When 
> > schoolyard jinxes and curses aren't enough, Harry has no 
> >were to go but to the dark and unforgivable. 

> 
> Jen:
> 
> .... You know, this thought reminds me of that scene in 
> Dumbledore's office between Voldemort and DD:
> 
> "But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous 
> pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, 
> Dumbledore." 
> 
> "Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places." (chap. 20, p. 
> 444, Scholastic)
> 
> Harry resorting to Unforgiveables is looking in the 'wrong place'
> to solve his problem. Dumbledore told him several times where his 
> power is, within himself, and his power is much stronger than 
> Voldemort's type of magic. Harry just has to believe it, is all. 
> Sort of like Dorothy clicking her heels and believing she will 
> get back to Kansas 
> <g>.
> 
> Jen
>

bboyminn: 

Excellent post, I very much liked, but don't have much to say about,
the parts I snipped. However, this last point really get my blood boiling.

Let me propose a hypothetical showdown between Harry and Voldemort.
Voldemort pulls his new wand and says 'Avada Kadavra' while
simultaneously Harry pulls his wand and say 'I love you'. Who is
likely to win? (Assuming we ignore the Brother Wand affect for the
moment.) Love is great but it's doesn't always keep you from dying. 

Yes, Harry's greatest strength is love, but it is abstract and
internal; you can't wander through a wizard's duel or fierce battle
handing out daisies and telling everyone you love them. That's not
going to win you any duels. 

Regardless of whether Harry wins by the force of Love, he still needs
practical applied magic skills. The more confident he is in his
functional practical usefull Defense Against the Dark Arts skills, the
more he is going to be able to hold off a horde of Death Eaters while
he tries to figure out how to apply 'Love' to the situation. 

Yes indeed Love is powerful, but it's not much use if you are
otherwise helpless. Really, I just don't see how the author can ignore
this point any longer. If Harry doesn't start some serious Defense
Against Dark Art learning in the next book, then I just don't see any
realistic or practical direction the storyline can take.

Let's take a different example. When Harry and Dumbledore are in the
cave, it seems clear from what Dumbledore said the magic leaves a
residue. Dumbledore is able to spot enchanted objects like the fake
cave wall and the submerged row boat. Although, we don't see it, we
have to assume that Dumbledore was able to spot the protective
enchantments that were guarding the Horcruxes. Once he spotted them,
he could then try various means to disarm them.

But what is Harry going to do? Neither Dumbledore nor anyone else has
taken the time to teach Harry this very valuable and very appliable
skill. So how does he find the Horcruxes, and if by chance he stubbles
across one, how does he know what it is, and if by some extreme stroke
of luck he determines that it really is a Horcrux, how does he spot
and disarm the many charms protecting it? The answer is, he doesn't,
because no one bothered to teach him how.

Harry is completely and thoroughly lacking in the most basic skills to
do this job. If he was train up in dueling, Defense Arts, and curse
breaking he would at least have some resources to draw on.

Love is very fine as an underlying force, but it's not easy to apply
in practical situations. To destroy the Horcruxes is he simply going
to tell them that he loves them? If he stands on the roof tops an
shouts 'I can love' are the missing Horcruxes going to magically
reveal themselves to him? I don't think so. Harry needs practical
appliable magical knowledge to arm him for the task ahead.

Really, I'm liking the continuation of the D.A. Club more and more all
the time.

Steve/bboyminn






From kjones at telus.net  Wed Nov 16 09:06:42 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:06:42 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dlefpm+2j4p@eGroups.com>
References: <dlefpm+2j4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437AF6A2.2010607@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143093

lealess wrote:

major snip
   Problem is, it would still suit an epic journey story.

KJ writes:
    I fell as though this is an epic journey story. Things have been set 
in motion decades before, leaving Harry holding the bag. Tom Riddle's 
mad heritage, the choice of his mother, the choice of his father, 
Dumbledore's choice in retrieving him from the orphanage, and so on 
through to the chices made to this point in time. While there is a sense 
of inevitability in the story, all of the choices, right or wrong have 
been clearly laid out, while the explanations for some of those choices 
have been hidden. It is now up to Harry to make his choice. He is the 
last one left that has yet to make the determining choice of his life. 
As the key character, I think that the whole story has come down to the 
choices that Harry now makes that will impact the same way on those who 
follow after him.

Lealess
> Maybe JKR is subverting readers' expectations of her message, having
> to do with choice and love.  Only sacrificial love measures up to the
> gold standard in the books, and only if done for the Good.  Mother
> love can be dubious.  Romantic love can weaken those it affects, but
> probably only if they are going against predestination.  The love of
> friends seems good, but doesn't hold up to Secret Keeping strains.
> There is love for the leader -- problematic.  I think it's safe to say
> Rowling shows the social realist downside of love at least as often as
> its mythic positive side.

KJ writes:
   To me it is more that she contrasts the effects of mother's love. 
Harry's mother gave her life, Tom's mother fled her life, Narcissa 
offered up Snape's life, and Neville's mother has only life. The 
differences of these mothers have had a crucial affect on the lives of 
their children. Again there is a contrast between Molly as a mother and 
Petunia as a mother, and the resulting personalities of the children due 
to the difference styles of child-rearing. I don't think that she is 
making any statement, so much as considering concepts or asking us to 
consider concepts. All of these mothers are strong for good or ill 
except what we see of Merope and what we take to be Snape's mother. I 
suspect that the realistic viewpoint is what holds the attention of the 
adult readers of Harry Potter. Friends, no matter how close argue and 
squabble, feel jealousy of one another, and only James Bond never caves 
under pressure, torture or fear.

Lealess
> Choice, or even the possibility of it, is also a scarce commodity in
> the books.  The wizarding world is full of magical constraints: life
> debts, unbreakable vows, DADA curses, goblet contracts, prophecies
> which become effective through the action of one person only, the
> sorting hat which students believe selects based on innate
> character, even if JKR says it isn't so.  Then there are social
> constraints: blood, family and class.

  KJ writes:
    I think that this is in contrast, in some ways, to the excitement 
and adventure of the first two books where Harry and Hermione were 
discovering magic and all of the things it could do. As they grew, they 
began to understand the destructive side of magic, the scary side and 
the resultingly difficult choices that came with the gifts. Ron already 
understood that inherent danger. The books are now being contrasted, to 
some extent with real life, where we can't afford it, are afraid to take 
a chance, don't have enough information, or time, don't receive 
sufficient support from our family and suffer a hundred little problems 
a day. Choices are hard things to make and sometimes we only have a 
choice of bad choices to work with. Choices are another one of those 
things that, once made, are apt to come back and bite you in the arse. 
With all choices come the inevitable bill which has to be paid.

Lealess
  Harry has accepted his preordained role, right?

  KJ writes:
    The one point that Dumbledore really tried to impress upon Harry was 
that he was not being dragged helplessly onto the field of battle to be 
killed. Harry understood that knowing what Voldemort had done, having 
killed Harry's parents, he had the choice to hide away from Voldemort or 
go after him as soon as he was able. Harry can choose his own timing, or 
at least as far as the last book allows for it, and for his own reasons 
instead of self-defense.

Lealess
   As for Snape,it was futile for him to even try to change his life if his
  fate was set all along, as it surely must seem now.  This, to me, is
> essentially a message of hopelessness, a message repeated by
> underprivileged kids I see every day... but, it's very subversive
> against the more "politically correct" messages which seek to free
> people from social constraints that seem every bit as tenacious as
> magical ones.

KJ writes:
   I think that Snape did change his life although he may be one of 
those people who blame all of their poor choices on other people or 
depend on others to make any good choices. He may have relied too much 
on other people to make his choices for him and as a result has no real 
self-reliance, or confidence in his own decision-making abilities. He 
seems to be more blown about by the fickle winds of change than Harry. 
Harry is really quite adaptable. Perhaps Snape has been too afraid to 
break free from those constraints and as a result resents everything in 
his life. I'm not even convinced that his actions in the tower scene 
were of his own choosing. Perhaps his anger at being called a coward was 
because he felt like a coward for simply doing as he was asked instead 
of making a more heroic choice.
KJ





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 09:41:35 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:41:35 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F172CBC5253634058593810915C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dleusf+rd7d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143094


> PJ:
> Well, actually a_svirn, it continues with "Then she met that 
Potter at 
> school and they left and got married and had you, and of course I 
knew you'd 
> be just the same, just as strange, just as --- abnormal --- and 
then, if you 
> please, she went and got herself blwown up and we got landed with 
you!"
> 
> So yes... Between your quote and the rest of it there is no doubt 
that 
> Petunia *knew* Harry was a Wizard when she agreed to take him.  
It's canon.

a_svirn:
>From what we know of canon she had no way of knowing it for sure, 
unless Dumbledore specifically mentioned in his letter that Harry 
was on Hogwarts registrar. Which I am willing to bet he didn't. 

PJ:
 
> She had 11 years to make those decisions but it wasn't meant to 
last 
> forever.  Harry was always meant to rejoin the Wizarding World 
when he 
> reached the age to attend Hogwarts.

a_svirn:
Wasn meant by whom? Certainly not by Petunia. Being as she was 
Harry's foster mother it should have been her decision.

> PJ:
> Dumbledore, according to the Lexicon, held all these offices, as 
well as 
> Headmaster of Hogwarts during the 11 years Harry was with the 
Dursleys.  As 
> Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot (Wow! I really mangled that 
spelling my 
> first time around) he was the leader of the Wizarding World...

a_svirn:
And where it is said in canon that "Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot" 
is a leader of a wizarding world? He's no more a head of the WW than 
Michael Martin (the Speaker of Commons) is a head of Britain.


PJ: 
> I wouldn't want you to think I was pulling arguements out of thin 
air simply 
> for arguement's sake so here it is... "The magic I evoked fifteen 
years ago 
> means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call 
this house 
> 'home'.  However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, 
however 
> badly treated, you have at least, grudgingly, allowed him 
houseroom."  (HBP 
> pg 35 Scholastic)

a_svirn:
I haven't realised that "grudgingly" means "willingly". You leave 
and learn. 

PJ: 
> Voldermort and his DE's have wiped out entire families before so 
what makes 
> Petunia and Vernon so special?  So untouchable?  

a_svirn:
It is precisely because they are not special in any way they are of 
no interest to DE and Voldemort. Only their association with Harry 
makes them a target. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 10:01:18 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:01:18 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dle9sj+4cm8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlf01e+sfsi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143096

>
> Alla:
>
> Erm... Voldemort and company does not like muggles, you know, ANY
> muggles. I think that it was well demonstrated in GoF and in the
> beginning of HBP in chapter 1. Muggles ARE in danger now, so yeah,
> IF Dursleys got an extra protection as payment of "caring" for
> Harry, I'd say they got a sweet deal for themselves.
>
> Now, of course if you want to measure quantitavely, they could be
in
> MORE danger with Harry in their house than without him, I guess,
but
> it is all relative, don't you think? They are just as likely to be
> killed if they never took Harry.
>
> What I am trying to say that with war started Dursleys are in
> danger, Harry or no Harry.
>

a_svirn:
Well, everything is relative of course, but I think you agree with
me is I say that risk being killed is infinitely higher if you share
a house with the wizard most wanted by DE and Voldemort, than if they
never heard about your existence.

Jen:
>JKR: But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember 
> my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because 
> there were letters before that
 (website FAQ)
> 
> Despite Petunia's best efforts to keep the WW out of their lives, 
> something prompted Dumbledore to write letters, plural, to her.

a_svirn:
Nevertheless he conspicuously omitted to mention those other letters 
during his homily. Now why? Maybe they were threats? 









From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Nov 16 11:38:48 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:38:48 -0000
Subject: ...Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry - Harry Skill.
In-Reply-To: <dleob6+314q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlf5o8+b1vu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143097

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
 
> 
> But what is Harry going to do? Neither Dumbledore nor anyone else 
has
> taken the time to teach Harry this very valuable and very appliable
> skill. So how does he find the Horcruxes, and if by chance he 
stubbles
> across one, how does he know what it is, and if by some extreme 
stroke
> of luck he determines that it really is a Horcrux, how does he spot
> and disarm the many charms protecting it? The answer is, he doesn't,
> because no one bothered to teach him how.
> 
> Harry is completely and thoroughly lacking in the most basic skills 
to
> do this job. If he was train up in dueling, Defense Arts, and curse
> breaking he would at least have some resources to draw on.
> 

Hickengruendler:

I think Dumbledore has done a lot to help Harry identifying possible 
Horcruxes. In fact, there is only one Horcrux left to be identified. 
The others are already known, and Dumbledore told Harry, what they 
are. And about the missing one: Dumbledore has given Harry all his 
informations about Voldemort. Harry now knows, which objects 
Voldemort would take as Horcruxes. He also should have at least a 
vague idea, where to search for them, since this was one reason, why 
Dumbledore showed him several stations of Voldemort's life. Voldemort 
hid them in places, to which he felt some connection.

And about destroying them. Well, Harry was able to destroy the diary. 
We don't know how many Horcruxes are as much protected as the locket 
was. Maybe at least some are easier to reach and destroy. And about 
the defense skills. I think he has as much as one can expect from a 
teenager, and probably more than most adult wizards have. They should 
at least be helpful, although I agree that they probably aren't 
enough to destroy all the Horcruxes.  







From altered.earth at ntlworld.com  Wed Nov 16 11:59:04 2005
From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:59:04 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>
References: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437B1F08.9010607@ntlworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143098

Steve wrote:

> 
> I'm not saying that the good guys won't help Harry, certainly they
> will, but they are in no position to have the knowledge or skill to
> solve the Horcrux problem. Help can only come from the dark side,
> because only they have the knowledge of Voldemort that can give Harry
> the shortcut he needs. 
>  
> Steve/bboyminn
> 
>

Aberforth Dumbledore is not really the illiterate grouch he pretends to 
be. Thats just a cover for his intel role amongst the less-savoury 
elements of the WW for the OOP. He is going to be helping Harry in the 
Horcrux hunt and destroy mission, with or without his Goat. Did not JKR 
state that Dumbledore's family 'would be a fertile line of inquiry' or 
some such?

digger


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/172 - Release Date: 15/11/2005




From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 16 05:34:31 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:34:31 -0500
Subject: Friends, enemies, and allies
In-Reply-To: <dld6nv+ss11@eGroups.com>
References: <dld6nv+ss11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437AC4E7.6030401@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143099

nrenka wrote:
> JKR doesn't seem to be going for the whole 'enemy of my enemy is my 
> friend' angle that is so common in the spy or thriller genre, where 
> alliances must be made with distasteful characters.  

Bart:
	That's because the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a fiction, 
designed to be blown apart. A more accurate saying is "the enemy of my 
enemy is my ALLY." Note that this is a major background operation; both 
the OOP and Voldemort are seeking ALLIES among the magical creatures, 
not necessarily friends.

	Bart






From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 16 06:10:36 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:10:36 -0500
Subject: Harry @ Hogwarts for Year VII
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAOQmE1w1bPUeVlGsj5MJxOgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAOQmE1w1bPUeVlGsj5MJxOgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <437ACD5C.5010802@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143100

Bruce Alan Wilson wrote:
> I do think that rather than coming back as a regular NEWTS 
> student, he'll come back as a 'special', taking a specially-
> designed curriculum of group classes and private tutorials 
> tailored to his specific needs.  Later, assuming that he and 
> the Wizardling establishment survive, he can go back and do 
> his NEWT-prep.

Bart:
While Harry and Voldemort cannot both live, they CAN both die.

JKR has stated that there will be no more prequels, sequels, no more 
Potterverse stories to tell, because there will be nothing left to tell. 
This does not bode well for Harry's survival.
	
	Bart






From stabbim at gmx.net  Wed Nov 16 10:31:03 2005
From: stabbim at gmx.net (Steffi)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:31:03 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape
Message-ID: <dlf1p7+tg2s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143101

Joe wrote:
> I think this is probably the way the book will turn out. No matter 
> what Snape does in the fight against Voldemort he won't ever be a 
> good man. He will merely be a minorly evil man. There is a tendency 
> among HP fans to think that all good people will fight Voldemort 
> and all evil people will support Voldemort.

Steffi:
Agreed. Wouln't it be much cooler, though, if Snape's evilness in the 
last several years (including the way he dislikes all students except 
his precious Slitherins) is just an act to maintain his cover for 
playing on Dumbledore's team? I mean, we know he was evil at some 
point being a Death Eater and all that, but I think it would be a 
great message to children/grown-ups that people can actually change 
if they want to and that redemption is possible. Sure, Snape has 
issues and isn't the nicest guy ever, but wouldn't it be nice to 
discover that there's more to Snape than everyone thinks there is? 
That JK Rowling has been playing us all along. 

Snape is the ultimate outsider, no one really likes him and he 
doesn't have any friends. And there's nothing he can do about it. 
Once evil, always evil. Once ousider, always outsider. Great message 
to all the kids who are outsiders in real life. Make one bad decision 
and it'll ruin your life forever. No one will trust you anymore, and 
even if you switch sides, you'll still be a lonely outsider for the 
rest of your life. Wow, that'd be a sad, sad story, really, the more 
I think about it. Maybe it'd be better if Snape was truely evil. ;) 
An there's still hope for Malfoy... maybe.


Steffi








From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov 16 13:24:50 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:24:50 -0000
Subject: The co-protagonists and minor characters in Book 7
In-Reply-To: <dkr3e3+ndc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlfbv2+20in@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143102

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

> So, what side plots (aside from Snape and RAB, which have been
> thoroughly discussed) really, really need to be resolved and what 
role
> will the sidekicks, subordinate heroes, and other minor characters
> (Luna, Neville, Dobby, Percy, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, 
Slughorn . . . . )
> play in resolving them? (Well, okay, we can include Snape here in
> relation to future actions as opposed to past motivations and 
events.)
> 
> Carol, hoping we've at least seen the last of S.P.E.W.

Marianne:

Just returned from vacation and I'm madly trying to catch up!

I think one thing no one has mentioned in response to Carol
(apologies if I've missed it) is Grawp and the giants.  JKR said in 
one of her relatively recent interviews (the TLC/Mugglenet one?) 
that she didn't think there was anything she could have cut from 
OoP.  In that book we had the whole minute-by-minute story of 
Hagrid's journey to the giants to try to get them on DD's side.  The 
only payoff in HBP was to learn that the giants were responsible for 
some of the catastrophes that are plaguing the British PM.  It seems 
like a lot of backstory to include in one book, if all we are to 
learn as a result is that the giants are supporting Voldemort by 
crashing around doing damage.

Also, a lot of page time was given to Grawp in OoP, and all we 
learned in HBP is that he's calmer and maturing nicely, according to 
Hagrid. Again, a lot of backstory was provided for only a brief 
mention in HBP. 

Personally, I found the whole trek to the giants and the Grawp story 
to be a tedious side trip.  However, if JKR believes that these 
minor story arcs could not have been cut or edited in OoP, then it 
strikes me that there should be some additional role that is yet to 
be played out.  

Marianne, not looking forward to giant stuff






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 13:34:56 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:34:56 -0000
Subject: Friends, enemies, and allies
In-Reply-To: <437AC4E7.6030401@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dlfci0+n68d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143103

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at s...> wrote:
>
> nrenka wrote:
> > JKR doesn't seem to be going for the whole 'enemy of my enemy is my 
> > friend' angle that is so common in the spy or thriller genre, where 
> > alliances must be made with distasteful characters.  
> 
> Bart:
> 	That's because the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a 
> fiction, designed to be blown apart. A more accurate saying is "the 
> enemy of my enemy is my ALLY." Note that this is a major background 
> operation; both the OOP and Voldemort are seeking ALLIES among the 
> magical creatures, not necessarily friends.

Point taken.  On the other hand, note the different approach taken by 
the Order and by Voldemort to membership.  Voldemort personally brands 
his members for loyalty, and is about gratifying the, shall we say, 
less acceptable to mainstream society wishes and desires of his 
followers.  The Order, in contrast, accepts all kinds--so long as 
Dumbledore personally would vouch therefore and serve as a sort of 
guarantor and regulator.

Many a reader has speculated that Harry/the Order are going to need 
some kind of assistance from areas that we wouldn't exactly consider 
good, such as some varieties of Snape or some varieties of a 
disgruntled Malfoy clan.  I don't quite see it in the cards because of 
Harry's (somewhat) idealistic approach to the quest, which has started 
off by rejecting one fairly major potential ally.  YMMV, and it's only 
a guess.

-Nora wakes up to a sad lack of sun






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Nov 16 14:08:48 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:08:48 -0000
Subject: FILK: White Maggot
Message-ID: <dlfehg+n2e1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143104

As the Xmas season draws near, it's time to start HP-carolling 
again...

White Maggot 

To the tune of Irving Berlin's White Christmas

Dedicated to - hmm, maybe this isn't the sort of filk that should be 
dedicated to anyone....

Lyrics and MIDI here:

http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/1761/white.html

Harry's presents included a sweater with a large Golden Snitch worked 
onto the front, hand-knitted by Mrs. Weasley, a large box of 
Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products from the twins, and a slightly 
damp, moldy-smelling package that came with a label reading "To 
Master, From Kreacher..."


.."I didn't think of giving Kreacher anything. Do people usually 
give their house-elves Christmas presents?" asked Harry, prodding the 
parcel cautiously.

"Hermione would," said Ron. "But let's wait and see what it is before 
you start feeling guilty."

A moment later, Harry had given a loud yell and leapt out of his camp 
bed; the package contained a large number of maggots. "Nice," said 
Ron, roaring with laughter. "Very thoughtful." "I'd rather have them 
than that necklace," said Harry, which sobered Ron up at once.

  -	HBP, Chap. 16

KREACHER:
I'm wrapping up a white maggot
A present for my Master dear
It is rank and squirmy 
And really wormy
And will be a fly next year
 
I'm wrapping up a white maggot
It wreaks of stench and of decay
May that half-breed traitorous blight
Be grossed out by putrid parasites

I'm hoping that Master's gagging
When he unwraps my Christmas gift
Let him feel disgusted - 
This maladjusted 
House-Elf feels awful tiffed.

I'm wrapping up a white maggot
On Christmas Day he'll see it writhe
May the Dark Lord brandish his scythe
So this elf can once again feel blithe.
 
    - CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Nov 16 14:12:26 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:12:26 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <dldhtc+gphc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlfeoa+bhmh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143105

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> To the last point, while I have no proof or even sound indications, 
I
> think Snape will be instrumental in helping Harry. The Horcrux task 
is
> near impossible, even when we factor in things like one of the
> Horcruxes being at Grimmauld Place. I really don't see Harry having
> either the skill or resources to find and destroy the Horcruxes, so 
I
> can only conclude that he will get some substantial outside help 
from
> somewhere. The only available candidate for that level of help is 
Snape. 
> 
> I'm not saying that the good guys won't help Harry, certainly they
> will, but they are in no position to have the knowledge or skill to
> solve the Horcrux problem. Help can only come from the dark side,
> because only they have the knowledge of Voldemort that can give 
Harry
> the shortcut he needs. 
> 
> Just one problem, how is Snape EVER going to get Harry to trust him?
> Even if he acts anonymously, how can he possibly convey information 
to
> Harry in a way that Harry will trust?
> 
> I'll be amazed if JKR can pull this off. There just seems to be too
> many impossible tasks, and too many impossible to resolve plot 
points
> for it all to conclude in only one book. 
> 
> And best of all, only two more years before we find out. Woo-Hoo!
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>

IMO the whole reason for Snape's actions at the tower are to gain 
Voldemort's absolute trust. Snape can then relay the info to 
Voldemort that DD knew (and therefore HP knows) about Voldemort's 
Horcruxes. It that situation, Snape may just be able to get Voldemort 
to reveal the locations of his Horcruxes.

I think Harry will identify the locket, but Bill (the curse breaker) 
will deal with the Horcrux (not sure if he will survive though). I 
would think that Harry can deal with Nagini, which leaves Snape to 
track down and destroy the final 2 (presuming Harry isn't one 
himself).

Perhaps Snape's actions will only be made clear at the precise moment 
that Harry is about to face Voldemort!!

Brothergib







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 16 14:31:28 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:31:28 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dleusf+rd7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlffs0+njt2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143106

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> > PJ:
> > Well, actually a_svirn, it continues with "Then she met that 
> Potter at 
> > school and they left and got married and had you, and of course I 
> knew you'd 
> > be just the same, just as strange, just as --- abnormal --- and 
> then, if you 
> > please, she went and got herself blwown up and we got landed with 
> you!"
> > 
> > So yes... Between your quote and the rest of it there is no doubt 
> that 
> > Petunia *knew* Harry was a Wizard when she agreed to take him.  
> It's canon.
> 
> a_svirn:
> From what we know of canon she had no way of knowing it for sure, 
> unless Dumbledore specifically mentioned in his letter that Harry 
> was on Hogwarts registrar. Which I am willing to bet he didn't. 

Geoff:
But PJ's comment isn't considering the question of Harry and 
Hogwarts, rather the question of whether Petunia knew that Harry was 
a wizard or not.

I've already quoted canon for that, but here goes again....

'"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," said 
Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"'

(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)

I think that makes it as plain as possible that the Dursleys knew 
what Harry was.






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 16 15:31:07 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:31:07 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dleusf+rd7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F31F51F25981CC4A26D8827915C0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143107



a_svirn:
>From what we know of canon she had no way of knowing it for sure,
>unless Dumbledore specifically mentioned in his letter that Harry
>was on Hogwarts registrar. Which I am willing to bet he didn't.

If you're not going to accept 3 entire paragraphs of Petunia and Vernons own 
words that they definitly knew Harry was a Wizard as solid canon in a 
discussion than I don't see how there can _be_ further discussion.  Sorry

PJ (who doesn't like having her chain jerked)





From chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 15:56:51 2005
From: chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com (chewbacca98407)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:56:51 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlffs0+njt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlfks3+u58q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143108

> Geoff:
> But PJ's comment isn't considering the question of Harry and 
> Hogwarts, rather the question of whether Petunia knew that Harry 
was 
> a wizard or not.
> 
> I've already quoted canon for that, but here goes again....
> 
> '"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," 
said 
> Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"'
> 
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)
> 
> I think that makes it as plain as possible that the Dursleys knew 
> what Harry was.


Chewbacca98407:
My .02$: Vernon and Petunia knew for a fact that Harry was a wizard. 
This has been amply established as shown by your quote above, but 
the significance of this is what is important IMO.  JKR has said 
herself in an interview (and I cannot remember which off-hand) that 
there will be magic displayed by a char. rather late in life.  I 
have thought for many books now that this will either be Petunia 
herself, or Dudley.  Vernon has no blood ties to the magic, and 
therefore is not an option for me.  I believe that the Dursley's 
knew full well what they could be in for when taking Harry in as a 
baby, and that this is one of the reasons that they are so millitant 
about being anti-magic.  That the power of their own denial of the 
WW could somehow make it not true in other words.  DD said that he 
explained everything in a letter while talking outside Privet dr. to 
prof. McG.  She seemed shocked that he thought this was sufficient.  
I believe that there has been much more contact between Petunia and 
DD over the years than we are being led to believe.  The letter was 
not the only contact...I am sure of it.  This is a potentially life 
or death situation for not just Harry, but the whole family.  I 
think that if V had really wanted to reduce the protection 
surrounding Harry, the obvious target would be the Dursley's.--When 
there is no longer the protection of the home where his mother's 
blood resides etc.  I believe that it is DD's additional protection 
upon the family that has really kept them safe from V, and under the 
radar of the DE's.  Mrs. Figg as a first line of contact/alarm bell 
anyone?....
There is a reason that she was unknown to the Ministry officials 
trying Harry's case of impropper magic use for his Patronus in 
OOTP.  She is not there because the MM is protecting Harry, she is 
there because DD is.  This protection has been extended to the 
entire family for the course of Harry's childhood, and DD made a 
point of letting Petunia and Vernon know how much he thinks they 
have taken his protection and kindness forgranted by mistreating 
Harry.  I predict that by early book 7 we have a serious heart to 
heart with Petunia and find out just what has been going on.  There 
are possibly letters concealed at the home that will support this, 
or give Harry additional info. he needs to begin his horcrux quest.  
There may have even been objects of a personal nature like baby 
items etc. that she could have to give him.  It has struck me that 
the loose floorboard in the second bedroom could have been her first 
hiding place for questionable items or letters etc., and when they 
moved Harry in there she needed a new place.....creaky bottom stair 
anyone?-forgive me if any of this has been previously stated by 
other posters, but I am a new member to this group and have not 
gotten through the msg. archives yet.

Chewbacca98407









From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 16 15:05:40 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:05:40 -0500
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry/Good writing  and bad writing
In-Reply-To: <437AF6A2.2010607@telus.net>
References: <dlefpm+2j4p@eGroups.com> <437AF6A2.2010607@telus.net>
Message-ID: <437B4AC4.90300@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143109

Kathryn Jones wrote:

>    To me it is more that she contrasts the effects of mother's love. 
> Harry's mother gave her life, Tom's mother fled her life, Narcissa 
> offered up Snape's life, and Neville's mother has only life. The 
> differences of these mothers have had a crucial affect on the lives of 
> their children. Again there is a contrast between Molly as a mother and 
> Petunia as a mother, and the resulting personalities of the children due 
> to the difference styles of child-rearing. I don't think that she is 
> making any statement, so much as considering concepts or asking us to 
> consider concepts. 


Bart 
(note that this is a discussion of possibilities, and I will be 
coming to no conclusion here):
One problem with discussing the Harry Potter novels is switching back 
and forth between treating the characters as real people, and treating 
them as products of JKR's writing. I'm going to step into the latter for 
a moment.

Often, especially when a writer is on a deadline, he or she will do 
something for which I do not know the technical term (and there may not 
be one); I generally call it writing AT a character rather than writing 
the character. This occurs when a writer has a character do actions 
which, when looked from outside the character, make superficial sense, 
but, looking from inside the character's body, so to speak, actually do 
not make sense at all (a MAJOR culprit of this was Dan Brown in THE DA 
VINCI CODE). JKR steps into this every now and then, and this may be the 
root cause of a lot of the behavior of the characters that has caused 
much contention in this group (note that I am not simply attributing it 
to general bad writing, as I am to a very specific form of bad writing). 
Dumbledore's speech to the Dursleys probably fits into this mold; it 
gives the reader satisfaction, but, when the reader attempts to look at 
the scene from Dumbledore's point of view, it raises questions.

This brings up another factor that I often see in writing. Once again, I 
am unaware of the technical term (and, once again, there may not be 
one), but I tend to call it the "bad writing clue." This is especially 
true in writings where there is a mystery: when you see an example of 
bad writing from an otherwise good writer (for the postmodernists out 
there, make that an internally consistent writer), that is often a clue 
to the mystery. Unfortunately, JKR's writing, while largely consistent, 
is not quite enough to count on this (although, alternatively, with her 
habit of giving readers subtle clues, I would not put this past her, 
either).
Bart






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Wed Nov 16 10:37:00 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:37:00 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dldgm6+j4li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlf24c+ggpl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143110

Carol <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> At any rate, there's nothing trite about it. That's what life 
> is about. If we knew everything there is to know at eleven, 
> if we learned nothing from experience, then adults would need 
> to step aside and let children rule the world. 

Lupinlore wrote:
LOL!  They could hardly make more of a mess of things than the 
adults have.  Where the trite comes in, or the -- shall we see 
that essence of Cheddar that exists in the Great Hoop of Being 
between the Form of Brie and the Idea of Gorgonzola -- is that 
Harry is supposed to simply trust in DD and allow some Great 
Plan to carry him through to adulthood, even if that Great Plan 
involves folly, injustice, and abuse.  Nonsense.

Carol wrote:
> Maybe Draco is right and Dumbledore is just a "stupid old man" 
> who's wrong about Snape. After all, that's just a stronger 
> version of Harry's view that Dumbledore is wrong to trust 
> Snape. The kids, both the newly minted Death Eater and the 
> Chosen One, agree that the old mentor's judgment is not to be 
> trusted. Their instincts are more sound than the judgment of 
> a highly intelligent old man who distrusted Tom Riddle from the 
> beginning and defeated the Dark wizard Grindelwald.

Lupinlore wrote:
ROFL!  So, Harry is simply supposed to trust in DD despite the 
fact that he tolerates the abuse of Snape and the Dursleys, 
despite DD's proven failures, and despite, finally, his own 
witness of DD's murder? "Just trust authority," the singsong and 
reprehensible mantra of Ceasar, Hitler, Stalin, and every 
oppressive social system, abusive parent, and idiot general in 
history.


Carol wrote:
> How, if I dare ask, is it "insipid and morally revolting" for 
> the protagonist to grow up, to know and understand more at 
> seventeen than he did at eleven? Why have the books at all if 
> the child protagonist knows no more about anything except how 
> to cast a spectacular spell or two at the end of the series 
> than he did at the beginning? I honestly don't understand how 
> having Harry learn that Dumbledore was right to trust Snape 
> (or about choices and death and all the other lessons he
> attempted to teach Harry) would be "morally revolting." 

Lupinlore wrote:
Hmmm.  If these lessons involve making a hero out of a child 
abuser, and that is what Snape most definitely is, I'd say they 
are indeed morally revolting and reprehensible.  To put it 
another way, they do have the aromatic quality of that substance 
which is the most excellent leaving of the digestion, and which 
doth make the grass grow and the flowers bloom.


Carol wrote:
> (*I* think it would be "morally revolting" to have Harry's 
> primitive, childish desire for revenge presented as heroic, 
> and I sincerely hope that Harry will never cast a successful 
> Crucio against Snape or anyone else.)


Lupinlore wrote:
ROFL!  Primitive and childish?  You mean the natural and 
perfectly correct desire for justice in the face of cruelty, 
abuse, and maltreatment?  If JKR simply waves her hands and 
dismisses Snape's abuse, especially with the reprehensible excuse 
that it was part of some fool plan of Dumbledore's to "prepare" 
Harry for his destiny, then once again there is a great cloud of 
that which makes the grass grow and the flowers blossom hanging 
over the HP series.

As for the Crucio, it does seem an imperative with many that 
Harry not use it.  Interestingly enough, Snape's use of the AK 
seems perfectly all right.  Now why on Earth is that?  Because it 
was part of DD's plan?  Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus 
Snape has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart 
and therefore HIS Unforgivables are perfectly... well... 
forgivable?


Lupinlore








From gmeuse at telus.net  Wed Nov 16 18:45:59 2005
From: gmeuse at telus.net (Gary Meuse)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:45:59 -0800
Subject: FILK: White Maggot
References: <dlfehg+n2e1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c5eadd$fd1bb290$6400a8c0@MeuseFamily>

No: HPFGUIDX 143111

I like the vist from St. Severus from that page:
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm#St._Severus

A Visit From St. Severus 

A filk by Catherine Johnson to The Night Before Christmas by 
Clement C. Moore. 

'Tis the night before Christmas and here in the castle
I'm still wrapping presents--egad! What a hassle
I plan to give presents to all of the kids
And the teachers and Filch, and yes, even Hagrid
I'll even wrap one for myself--aren't I clever?
Then they'll never guess it was me--no, not ever!
I don't know what's caused this odd holiday cheer
But it keeps getting stronger as Christmas draws near
So gifts I will give, of books, candies and toys
For all Hogwarts girls and all Hogwarts boys 

I shall use a charm to make the gifts small
How else do you think I could carry them all?
Then I'll take them up, just as quick as can be
And sneak out and put them all under the tree
Ah yes, there is it, what a beautiful sight
And no one will know what I've done here tonight
For quiet I'll be, and clever and sly
I'll be less than shadow as I slither by
And place the gifts hither and thither and yon
And then, like a memory, I'll simply be gone 

For Slytherin! Ravenclaw! Both these and more!
For Hufflepuff! Yes! And even Gryffindor!
I'll slip under the tree! They never will know!
And then, and then, and then I will go! 

But wait, what is this; is some else here?
I get this odd feeling, like someone is near
It's Potter, if course; why'd it have to be him?
He snuck out, I suppose, on some stupid whim.
Perhaps if I'm quiet, and don't make a sound
He'll stay where he is, and he won't turn around.
Yes, stay here I will, until that brat leaves
Now what was that sound? Oh, pro'bly just Peeves. 

But then Potter turns, and looks me right in the eyes
"Oh, damn," I exclaim. "Professor!?" he cries.
"What are you doing," the boy asks with a sneer.
"I could ask you the same; you shouldn't be here!
You're out after curfew, you know that's not right
Do you want detention on Christmas eve night?"
"No, sir," he replies, sounding awfully contrite
Which is good; I'm not in the mood for a fight. 

He looks at the bag I've slung over my shoulder
And takes a step forward, looking a bit bolder
"Those are presents, aren't they? Who are they for?"
"That's none of your business, Potter, don't be a boor.
Just leave me alone here and go back to bed
And get thoughts of this night right straight out of 
your head."
At this, he shrugs and heads out of the hall
Well, now that that's over--presents for all! 

Christmas day dawns, so clear and so bright
And mysterious presents showed up in the night
All the kids are so happy, they can't wait to see
And, oh look, some new potion books all just for me
So they eat and they play, and they can't help ask, "Who?"
But they never will know--well, perhaps one or two.
Before I depart, I must not fail to mention:
"Happy Christmas to all, and to Potter--DETENTION!" 


"gmeuse"





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 16 20:31:21 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:31:21 -0000
Subject: The Possibilities of Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5ea2e$0f1162c0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dlg4up+b13r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143112


> Sherry now:
> Trusted and respected by whom?  The quickness with which his
> colleagues--except Hagrid--were ready to accept Harry's word on the death of
> Dumbledore doesn't seem to indicate that he was trusted and respected by his
> fellow teachers.  It seemed that they had all, like the rest of us, accepted
> Snape on the strength of Dumbledore's word alone.  They all seemed to be
> ready to dump him like a hot rock, as soon as they heard what Harry said.
> As someone in the pro Snape camp said ages ago, nobody even said anything
> like, but Harry you must be wrong.  They bought it very quickly, as if they
> were disposed to believe the worst of him.
> 

Pippin:
Unlike Harry, the Order did not hesitate to send for Snape when they needed
help and as Lupin said they were all glad when he arrived. It doesn't sound as
if they doubted him then. 

But as the old saying has it, Truth is the first casualty of war. Why? Because 
in times of crisis, Skepticism gets bound, gagged, and stuffed in the attic.  It's 
not human nature to doubt  in the midst of a crisis. That's why tyrants love
to manufacture enemies, but unfortunately it also works for well-meaning
leaders who are merely mistaken about things. In the eyes of all but
Hagrid, perhaps, who still sees Harry as the little kid he rescued from the
hut on the rock, Harry is the Chosen One. Doubt is unthinkable now.

Sherry:

Yes, it must take a great deal of sacrifice, bravery and honor to kill an
innocent, unarmed old man. 

Pippin:
You haven't said what else Snape could do, except show his loyalty by dying,
leaving Harry at the mercy of the DE's. Draco knew someone else was there.
Don't you think he'd have tried to redeem himself for his failure in the DE's 
eyes by telling the others?

Is life in the Potterverse like a Star Trek episode, where  the Head Writer 
makes sure that Captain Kirk always finds a  solution that lets the heroes 
live to fight another day? 

If we teach kids that they will never have to choose between ugly alternatives 
as long as they are heroic and brave, what will they think when ugly alternatives
are all that's on the table? That they must have done something wrong?

Pippin






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 20:45:48 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:45:48 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlffs0+njt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlg5ps+ceu6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143113

 
> Geoff:
> But PJ's comment isn't considering the question of Harry and 
> Hogwarts, rather the question of whether Petunia knew that Harry 
was 
> a wizard or not.
> 
> I've already quoted canon for that, but here goes again....
> 
> '"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," 
said 
> Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"'
> 
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)
> 
> I think that makes it as plain as possible that the Dursleys knew 
> what Harry was.

And how can you know whether a baby is a wizard or not, until he or 
she shows accidental magic?  Only if you have an access to the 
Hogwarts registry. Of course with her dratted sister being what 
she'd been and her brother-in-law a wizard it was a safe bet, but 
unless Dumbledore specifically mentioned it in the letter, she could 
not know it FOR SURE that morning.  That's what I've been saying all 
along and I don't see how it contradicts canon. Or do you think that 
Harry's question meant "did you know that I was a wizard that 
morning when you took me in?" In PS he didn't know enough of his own 
history to work that one out.

a_svirn






From ornawn at 013.net  Wed Nov 16 20:36:16 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:36:16 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
Message-ID: <dlg580+u5es@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143114

>Lupinlore
<snip>
>Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus
>Snape has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart
>and therefore HIS Unforgivables are perfectly... well...
>forgivable?

Orna:

It doesn't seem forgivable for anyone, and actually there seems to be 
quite a consensus between ESE!Snape-fans and DDM!Snape-fans, including 
Grey-Snape-fans, that Snape isn't going to survive this way or the 
other. My understanding of this is that his AK is just unforgivable, 
in the sense, that nobody can morally or psychologically imagine 
him "living happily after". 
He is developing into the most tragic character of the book, as I see 
it. But I don't see many DDM!Snape-fans thinking there might be any 
revelation, which will make his killing DD excusable. There are 
thoughts which might make it understandable from some tragic 
situation, just as sometimes you can understand impossible choices 
people do in impossible life-situations. The only way, Snape can 
morally live after, could be, if it turns out that it had been some 
fake AK, whatever that means, a scenario, which doesn't sound IMO very 
convincing. 

Orna












From JLen1777 at aol.com  Wed Nov 16 20:45:17 2005
From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:45:17 EST
Subject: Show/Tell(formerly:PossibilitiesofGreySnape/Dumbledore/Harry/GoodwritingBadwriti
Message-ID: <b9.658b32dd.30acf45d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143115

 
In a message dated 11/16/2005 3:21:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bartl at sprynet.com writes:
 
Bart (snipped):
>> Often, especially when a writer is on a deadline, he or she 
will do something for which I do not know the technical term 
(and there may not be one); I generally call it writing AT a 
character rather than writing the character. This occurs when 
a writer has a character do actions which, when looked from 
outside the character, make superficial sense, but, looking from  
inside the character's body, so to speak, actually do not 
make sense at all.  <<<snipped>>>  Dumbledore's speech to the 
Dursleys probably fits into this mold; it gives the reader 
satisfaction, but, when the reader attempts to look at the scene 
from Dumbledore's point of view, it raises questions.

This brings up another factor that I often see in writing.  Once again, I am unaware of the technical term (and, once again, there 
may not be one), but I tend to call it the "bad writing clue." 
This is especially true in writings where there is a mystery: 
when you see an example of bad writing from an otherwise good 
writer (for the postmodernists out there, make that an internally 
consistent writer), that is often a clue to the mystery. <<


Jaimee:
I think you make a good point, and though it may not be exactly 
what you are saying, I think it is similar.  On some amateur 
writing (workshopping) sites, I see this type of problem called 
"telling" rather than "showing," and I think sometimes DD's 
speeches could potentially fall into this category.  However, I 
am not sure that JKR could (or should) change it.  She spends 
most of the novel "showing" through Harry's eyes, and then allows 
DD to clear things up and lets him "tell" the reader from a 
fuller perspective.  I feel like that is what she feels is 
necessary to clear up the Mystery.
 
I think she also has another agenda with this type of "telling."  
In each book, I think she tries to write it in a stand alone 
capacity, meaning someone wouldn't necessarily have to read 
previous books to enjoy the next (though I think this would be 
difficult).  Therefore, I think part of her reasoning in chapters 
like DD in HBP as well as "The Other Minister," are at least in 
part, to fill in back story for new readers.  "The Other Minister"  
especially seemed like a summary for those lacking previous 
information.  I am not attacking her style mind you, I can see why 
it is necessary, I'm simply expanding on Bart's ideas with my own 
opinion on the matter.  I do see how this might be the potential 
problem with some of the chapters as Bart mentioned above.
 
Jaimee









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 21:06:46 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:06:46 -0000
Subject: ...Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry - Harry Skill.
In-Reply-To: <dleob6+314q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlg716+b2qh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143116

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> bboyminn: 

<snip>

> Yes, Harry's greatest strength is love, but it is abstract and
> internal; you can't wander through a wizard's duel or fierce battle
> handing out daisies and telling everyone you love them. That's not
> going to win you any duels. 

<snip>

> Harry is completely and thoroughly lacking in the most basic skills to
> do this job. If he was train up in dueling, Defense Arts, and curse
> breaking he would at least have some resources to draw on.

But then, if it's really the practical skillz which are so 
overwhelmingly important, why has Dumbledore been downright 
lackadaisical towards Harry's acquisition thereof?  Harry and Ron both 
think that his special lessons with Dumbledore are going to be cool 
magic to fight Voldemort with, but instead no, it's all about 
psychology.  Dumbledore is content to leave Harry's practical education 
in the hands of Snape, someone who he now for sure knows Harry doesn't 
learn well with.  He hasn't been giving Harry special education from 
the beginning of his Hogwarts career, and he doesn't really change his 
approach even after Harry's full awareness of his awful destiny.

I don't see things coming down to the kind of Your Mad Skills vs. Mine 
showdown which has filled the 'insert final battle here' speculation in 
many a scenario.  Rather, Harry tends to get through based on his 
overall quite fine intuitions--he has that fine sharp reactive edge 
that a book-smart companion like Hermione just doesn't.

Dumbledore seems to think that Harry knows what he really needs to 
know.  What ever happened to the solid faith in Dumbledore and all of 
his judgements that we're supposed to be evincing? :)

-Nora keeps on keepin' on with the suspicion that it's going to be a 
more elegant than action-packed finale






From Sherry at PebTech.net  Wed Nov 16 21:21:49 2005
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:21:49 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dle9sj+4cm8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlg7td+n6rl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143117

> > a_svirn:
> > If they need a protection from Voldemort it only because they 
> agreed 
> > to adopt Harry. It is not the protection they got out of the 
> > bargain, but on the contrary got their lives endangered INTO the 
> > bargain.
> >

Amontillada: 
Only because they agreed?  Even if they hadn't taken him into their
home, I suspect that Voldemort and/or the Death Eaters might have gone
after them in search of clues to finding him. I don't think it's a
secret that Petunia is Lily's sister, or that the DEs would leave any
possible clue unturned or untortured.
> 
> Alla:
> Now, of course if you want to measure quantitavely, they could be in 
> MORE danger with Harry in their house than without him, I guess, but 
> it is all relative, don't you think? They are just as likely to be 
> killed if they never took Harry.
> 
> What I am trying to say that with war started Dursleys are in 
> danger, Harry or no Harry.
> 

Amontillada:
In fact, I've often wondered if the blood tie protection worked both
ways--if the fact that Harry and Aunt Petunia share a home has
protected the Dursleys as well as Harry himself.

The DEs tortured Alice and Frank Longbottom out of their sanity, just
in search of clues that MIGHT help them find Voldemort. I doubt that
they'd moved all the magical protections from their house when he
disappeared, but the DEs were able to invade. Members of the WW have
been watching the Dursley house, but it doesn't have overt magical
protection. 

Consider--the only wizards who've ever been able to do anything 
hurtful to the Dursley family (whether or not intentionally) are those
who'd been given the address and invited in, however oddly: Harry and
the Weasleys.

The Death Eaters who attacked Harry and Dudley in OotP, on Umbridge's
secret orders, actually attacked them away from the house--in the
neighborhood, but not in the actual home. I believe the home is
somehow shielded from magical detection or entry. Even if magical
individuals know about where it is, they can't actually assault the
house or its occupants. 

Amontillada






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 21:47:39 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:47:39 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlf24c+ggpl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlg9dr+2pa2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143118

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> ....edited...
> ... So, Harry is simply supposed to trust in DD despite the 
> fact that he tolerates the abuse of Snape and the Dursleys, 
> ..., and despite, finally, his own witness of DD's murder? 
> ...
> 
> ... If these lessons involve making a hero out of a child 
> abuser, and that is what Snape most definitely is, I'd say 
> they are indeed morally revolting and reprehensible.  ...
> 
> ... If JKR simply waves her hands and dismisses Snape's abuse, 
> especially with the reprehensible excuse that it was part of 
> some fool plan of Dumbledore's to "prepare" Harry for his 
> destiny, then once again there is a great cloud [of dung] 
> ....
> 
> As for the Crucio, ... imperative ... that Harry not use it.  
> Interestingly enough, Snape's use of the AK seems perfectly 
> all right.  Now why on Earth is that?  Because it  was part 
> of DD's plan?  Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus Snape 
> has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart 
> ...
> 
> Lupinlore


bboyminn:

Please, no offense, but I think you are engaging in a case of
selective reading and overstating.

Given Snape's actions through out the stories, in one sense there can
only be grey!Snape. Even if he ultimately acts for the side of good in
the end, that doesn't make him a hero or truly redeem his previous
actions. Though in some cases it might explain them. We must remember
that even amoung the Good Guys there can be bad guys. In that sense,
there is no guarantee that a Good person is a nice person, or for that
matter, that a Bad person can't be thoroughly pleasant. 

I think we have to ask if anyone is really trying to make Snape out as
the Hero? I really don't think so. He can be on the side of good and
still be forced to do bad things; such is the nature of war. Further
we can explain and understand Snape motivations for his actions; for
example, in killing Dumbledore, but just because we can explain and
understand doesn't mean we forgive, nor does it mean we elevate him to
the status of hero.

On a side note; I think this is one of the failings of excessively
liberal society - to explain is to forgive. 'My daddy never hugged
me'; well, it alright that you murdered him then, we can certainly
understand'. 

Back to the central subject; I think the main question is whether
Snape has really defected to Voldemort, or whether, despite killing
Dumbledore, Snape is really still on the side of Good, and whether in
the final scene, Snape will act for the side of good. 

Either he will or he won't. But either way Snape will never be a nice
person. Even if, in the end, Snape lays down his life to help Harry,
that counts for something, but it doesn't undo the fact that Snape
killed Dumbledore. That fact can never be undone. 

However, it can be explained, it can be understood, a fair,
reasonable, and justifiable context can be established, but the wizard
world is never going to say 'oh well, I didn't know that Dumbledore
never hugged you; I guess it's alright that you killed him then'.
While we may seek to justify, explain, and understand Snape's action;
that really doesn't mean we forgive him, and it certainly doesn't mean
we have elevated him to the status of 'Hero'. 

On the subject of Snape's general abuse of Harry, indeed I think
Snape's alleged abuse of Harry will be passed over. That is, Snape
will never truly be called to task for it. I believe this partly
because, with only one book left, I don't think there is time to run
off on that tangent. We all saw what Snape did, and we can all draw
our own conclusions. 

Further with all the cases of horrific and unconscionable abuse
against children that occurs in the world, I hesitate to call Snape's
actions Abuse. Snape is a nasty mean vindictive teacher, and as
unpleasant as it is, it pales when compared to true Abuse. 

Back to the original point, Snape may be able to justify his killing
of Dumbledore, he may be able to establish a context that explains his
action in a way that the wizard world understands. But Snape, even
under the very very very best of circumstances will never be elevated
to the status of hero. The wizard world will never forget that Snape
snuffed out the life of a great wizard, true hero, and ally. At best,
they will understand and therefore tollerate Snape's present in the
wizard world, but never a hero.

That which can be explained, even that which can be justified, can't
necessarily be forgiven.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 16 22:15:48 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:15:48 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlg9dr+2pa2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgb2k+pb09@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143119

Steve:

<SNIP>

> On the subject of Snape's general abuse of Harry, indeed I think
> Snape's alleged abuse of Harry will be passed over. That is, Snape
> will never truly be called to task for it. I believe this partly
> because, with only one book left, I don't think there is time to run
> off on that tangent. We all saw what Snape did, and we can all draw
> our own conclusions. 

Alla:

Not sure about that, personally. I mean, yes of course JKR won't be 
spending pages on going on and on how bad Snape was to Harry and 
Neville, because indeed one book left and too many loose ends to tie, 
BUT I think that if Snape will be punished for who he is, as a 
package deal, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that abuse will be 
included in there.

Say Snape indeed dies while saving Harry, but before he dies, he has 
time to say " Potter, I am sorry for everything I ever did to you". 
In that case scenario, even if JKR did not mean to include Snape's 
abuse of Harry while teaching him in the apology, I as reader will be 
able to imagine it. Everything could be included in here - starting 
with Snape " rolling the ball" to make Harry an orphan and continuing 
with him mistreating Harry during the lessons and of course killing 
Dumbledore in front of Harry.

I think there are ways for JKR to write just few sentences and still 
show that Snape will not go punishment free.

JMO,

Alla.









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 16 22:49:14 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:49:14 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlg5ps+ceu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgd1a+fke4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143120

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Geoff:
> > But PJ's comment isn't considering the question of Harry and 
> > Hogwarts, rather the question of whether Petunia knew that Harry 
> was 
> > a wizard or not.
> > 
> > I've already quoted canon for that, but here goes again....
> > 
> > '"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," 
> said 
> > Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"'
> > 
> > (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)
> > 
> > I think that makes it as plain as possible that the Dursleys knew 
> > what Harry was.

a_svirn:
> And how can you know whether a baby is a wizard or not, until he or 
> she shows accidental magic?  Only if you have an access to the 
> Hogwarts registry. Of course with her dratted sister being what 
> she'd been and her brother-in-law a wizard it was a safe bet, but 
> unless Dumbledore specifically mentioned it in the letter, she 
could 
> not know it FOR SURE that morning.  That's what I've been saying 
all 
> along and I don't see how it contradicts canon. Or do you think 
that 
> Harry's question meant "did you know that I was a wizard that 
> morning when you took me in?" In PS he didn't know enough of his 
own 
> history to work that one out.

Geoff:
But someone has already quoted a piece of canon I overlooked:

'"It's the best place for him,"said Dumbledore firmly. "His aunt and 
uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older. I've 
written them a letter."
"A letter?" repeated Professor McGonagall faintly, sitting back down 
on the wall. "Really, Dumbledore, you think you can explain all this 
in a letter? These people will neve understand him!..."'

(PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.15 UK edition)

What is he going to explain in the letter if it isn't about Harry's 
background and who he is? How to cook an omelette? 

Enough people have presented enough canon surely for even the most 
pernickety questioner of the Dursley's knowledge to stop, scratch his 
or her head and wonder whether there is something there....

Or would it need an affadavit, signed by JKR herself?
:-))






From rklarreich at aol.com  Wed Nov 16 23:15:18 2005
From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:15:18 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlgd1a+fke4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgei6+du4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143121

> Geoff:
> But PJ's comment isn't considering the question of Harry and 
> Hogwarts, rather the question of whether Petunia knew that Harry 
> was a wizard or not.
>
> I've already quoted canon for that, but here goes again....
> 
> '"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish," 
> said 
> Uncle Vernon, "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed!"'
> 
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)
> 
> I think that makes it as plain as possible that the Dursleys knew 
> what Harry was.

Roberta:

To reinforce what a_svirn wrote in reply to this quote, all this 
proves is that Petunia and Vernon made an educated guess, based on 
Harry's parentage.  They could only have known *for sure* that he was 
a wizard if Dumbledore specifically told them so in his letter, and 
as we do not know the contents of the letter, we cannot assume that 
he did so.  If he didn't, then the Dursleys guessed that Harry had 
probably inherited his parents' abilities and decided to try 
to "stamp it out of him" preemptively.

> Geoff:
> But someone has already quoted a piece of canon I overlooked:
<SNIP of the quote which could be read UPTHREAD>
> (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.15 UK edition)
> 
> What is he going to explain in the letter if it isn't about Harry's 
> background and who he is? How to cook an omelette? 

Roberta:

Well, Harry's parents have just been killed by Voldemort, who tried 
to kill Harry too but got vaporized instead, and in order to protect 
Harry from further attempts on his life by remaining Death Eaters, 
Dumbledore would like Petunia to take him in order to seal a charm 
Dumbledore has cast involving Harry's mother's sacrifice.  That all 
seems like reasonable background information to put in the letter.

Beyond that, we can speculate that Dumbledore also told the Dursleys 
that Harry has definitely inherited his parents' magical ability 
(which Dumbledore would know, having privileged access to the 
Hogwarts Quill) and that when he is eleven he will be offered a place 
at Hogwarts.  It is certainly reasonable to expect that Dumbledore 
would place this information at the Dursleys' disposal from the 
beginning, as a courtesy, but until we see the actual letter, this is 
all speculation, NOT canon.

Geoff: 
> Enough people have presented enough canon surely for even the most 
> pernickety questioner of the Dursley's knowledge to stop, scratch 
his 
> or her head and wonder whether there is something there....
> 
> Or would it need an affadavit, signed by JKR herself?
> :-))

Roberta:

The text of the letter would do nicely.  In the meantime, the canon 
that has been presented simply shows that the Dursleys had good 
reason to suspect that Harry was a wizard at the time they took him 
in.  Not that they knew it for a fact.  They could only know it for a 
fact at the time they took him in (before any displays of accidental 
magic on Harry's part) if Dumbledore told them in the letter, and we 
haven't seen that letter.

Roberta








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 01:12:04 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:12:04 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dldnn3+bap9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgld4+20k5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143122

Christine wrote:
>
> So if we all agree that a boggart can do magic to some extent, this
is my question: as the boggart is an animal in its purest form, and 
therefore in its purest form has limited intelligence, how will it be
able to perform any sort of magic requiring human knowledge, even if
it takes on the shape of a human?  So it can turn into a being with
the *power* to perform magic, but will it have the
intelligence/knowledge necessary to do so?
> 
> Christine


Carol responds:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that a Boggart is an animal. Can
you cite the passage you have in mind? (I checked "Fantastic Beasts"
just to be sure, and Boggarts aren't included.) Possibly you're
thinking of Lupin's DADA class (in which Harry learns about Boggarts)?
Granted, Lupin focuses mostly on Dark creatures, but his class also
includes sections on Vampires, which are classified as Beings rather
than Beasts, and Werewolves, which are Beasts only during the full
moon and are otherwise fully human (despite being labelled as
"half-breeds" by Umbridge). ("Beings," under the current definition,
are creatures with sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of
the magical community and help to shape them; presumably Boggarts
aren't included. But they don't seem to be Beasts, either, as they
don't eat or do anything except shift their shape in response to a
person's worst fears.)

At any rate, I think Boggarts are probably spirits of some sort,
rather than animals, neither Beasts nor Beings, rather like
Poltergeists, Dementors, and possibly Banshees (which presumably
exist, at least in the Irish WW, since Seamus's Boggart is a Banshee).
(I was going to include Ghouls, but oddly, they're classified as Beasts.)

If I'm right and a Boggart is a spirit rather than an animal, it
wouldn't need any form of intelligence, just the magical ability to
discern a specific fear and imitate the appearance and behavior of the
thing or person that the witch or wizard fears, including a specific
set of spoken words ("I'm sorry to inform you, Miss Granger, that you
have failed all your classes.") It's all, as someone else said, a
specific form of Legilimency. No thought or effort required. It does
what all Boggarts do simply by virtue of being a Boggart. It can't be
trained to do anything else, as an animal could. It has no self, no
real being, no essence. The apparent power of Harry's Boggart came,
IMO, from Harry himself, from his fear of Dementors rather than from
the Boggart itself.

Carol, hoping that this interpretation makes some degree of sense but
by no means committed to it








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 01:27:49 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:27:49 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlgb2k+pb09@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgmal+adfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143123

 

 Alla wrote:

> BUT I think that if Snape will be punished for who he is, as a 
> package deal, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that abuse will be 
> included in there.

"Punished for WHO HE IS"?  Yikes, dude!  

I guess a lot of people are seeing Snape as fullfilling the
'scapegoat' role narratively.  There's a strain in Hollywood
storytelling that I find particularily pernicious, which is the amping
up of the 'demonic villain', on whom all the sins of the film are
heaped until the audience bays for blood.  The 'scapegoat' is then
exiled, or killed (often after Our Hero offers him clemency but the
Villain is sooo treacherous that he only uses it to sneak up on the
hero, and then the Hero HAS to kill the dirty dog).  And then the
audience can feel all warm and fuzzy because that nasty old goat has
taken all the sins out of the village, and our identifier character's
Purity of Heart has been validated. The most famous example is "Fatal
Attraction", where Glen Close originally was pictured as a sadly
disturbed person who died by suicide. After a few test screenings and
a great deal of soul-selling the ending was changed to the appalling
spectacle of dehumanization we see today.  There isn't any chance,
IMO, that this is where JKR is going with Snape but that so many
people WANT her to go there... I dunno. It's just depressing.  

It's an argument I haven't used against evil!Snape because it's more
of a moral argument, which is not a language we use a heck of a lot in
the film industry, but JKR seems such a humane, generous person that I
have a hard time believing she'd invent a central character who piles
ugliness, meaness, greasiness, and uncoolness on top of treachery,
cowardice, and what-have-you, just so we can revel either in the
vicious pleasure of revenge or the smug pleasure of clemency to the
sub-human guy who has Nothing to Do with us Clean People.  

 -- Sydney, crossly







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 02:17:02 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:17:02 -0000
Subject: All of a Piece (was re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dldt5q+73ev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgp6u+p2v5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143124

Lupinlore wrote:
>  <snip>
And as I say, if Snape isn't punished for the way he's abused Harry,
then JKR is a very poor writer indeed  with no idea of how to craft a
well-written and satisfactory story. <snip>


Carol responds:
I can't believe that I'm responding again when I know you'll never
agree with me. 

I've already argued that "well-written" and "satisfactory" to a
particular reader are not equivalent terms, and from the number of
offlist responses I received, it's clear that many list members agree
with me. That aside, and ignoring the question of what constitutes
"abuse" because we don't agree there, either, surely the fact that
Snape has permanently lost his teaching job (and probably his salary
for the year and whatever possessions he had at Hogwarts as well) is
sufficient punishment for this supposed abuse (which is not abuse by
WW standards, only by ours)? That's how a teacher would be punished in
the RW, is it not?

Snape has also lost his position in the Order, the (grudging) respect
of his former colleagues, his freedom, his mentor--in short,
everything except the tenuous and incomplete trust of the Dark Lord.
He is in danger from both sides, a hunted man, perhaps a haunted man
if the hell that showed in his face in "The Flight of the Prince"
reflects the remorse I believe he feels.

Punish him? He's already being punished! What "karmic" justice or
retribution for his "abuse" of the students does he deserve in
addition to his present condition? A taunt or tongue-lashing from
Harry? A Crucio from the pure-souled hero, who will no longer be
pure-souled if he ever successfully casts one?

Let's not lose perspective here. The murder of Dumbledore is one thing
(assuming that he had a choice in the matter); the use of sarcasm in a
classroom is quite another. The students at Hogwarts are exposed to
all sorts of dangers as part of their education, which amounts to a
long-term course in surviving the dangers of their particular world.
Dealing with sarcasm and unfairness is just one more life lesson, one
that RW students, all too sensitive these days, would do well to learn.

In a modern Muggle school system, run by supposedly enlightened
educational experts who put the feelings of their students above the
mastery of the subject matter, Snape's teaching methods would not be
tolerated. In the WW, which only recently stopped whipping students or
chaining them to the walls as punishment, they're par for the course.
(At least, unlike Crouch!Moody, he never turned a student into an
animal or used Unforgiveable Curses on them, and unlike Umbridge, he
balanced theory with practice and never used torture in his
detentions.) I'm sure that you would have been delighted if he had
received a reprimand from Dumbledore for docking points from Harry or
gloating when he bungled a potion. Now I'm afraid you'll have to be
satisfied with the mere loss of his teaching position. True, he didn't
lose it as the result of his teaching methods, but he lost it
nevertheless. What better Karmic retribution or poetic justice for
unfair teaching can there be?

Carol








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 03:54:16 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:54:16 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlcs9q+82d0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlgut8+j9d1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143125

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Since Hogwarts was founded during a time when Muggles were 
> > persecuting wizards and witches, 

> >>a_svirn:
> I beg to differ. Hogwarts was founded in the pre-conquest time    
> when muggles and wizards lived together in harmony. Witch-hunts   
> started a couple of centuries later. And we don't really know who 
> hunted whom. 
> After all for real witches, like Wandeline the Weird burnings were 
> more like a joke than a real ordeal. 

Betsy Hp:
"They 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 
p.150)

I'd also say that the side of a conflict that retreats so absolutely 
they actually hide their animals probably came out the worst in 
whatever clashes occured.  IMO, anyway.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > and it was put (I think deliberately, IIRC) in a very out-of-the-
> > way place, and it was built as a fortress type castle rather    
> > than a princess type castle 

> >>a_svirn:
> "Princess type castle"? Would you mind explain the term?

Betsy Hp:
Ah, yes, this is technical term meaning a castle built for looks 
(ala Disney) rather than use.  (At least, that's what it means in 
*my* world <g>.)  I doubt castles were built just to be pretty in 
the days of the Founders.  (I'm by no means a castle expert.  Which 
you've probably already guessed.)  But I was thinking more along the 
lines that JKR does suggest that the castle is protective rather 
than just a cool location for a school. 

Betsy Hp






From ellecain at yahoo.com.au  Thu Nov 17 05:59:34 2005
From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:59:34 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlf24c+ggpl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlh686+gkp4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143126

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> > At any rate, there's nothing trite about it. That's what life 
> > is about. If we knew everything there is to know at eleven, 
> > if we learned nothing from experience, then adults would need 
> > to step aside and let children rule the world. 
> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> LOL!  They could hardly make more of a mess of things than the 
> adults have.  Where the trite comes in,
<snip>is that 
> Harry is supposed to simply trust in DD and allow some Great 
> Plan to carry him through to adulthood, even if that Great Plan 
> involves folly, injustice, and abuse.  Nonsense.

Elyse: First of all, Dumbledore never had a Great Plan to defeat 
Voldemort. He was simply trying to salvage what was left of the WW 
in times of war.
His trust in Snape was not part of a Great Plan, he never planted 
Snape as a spy among the Death Eaters, and his trust in Snape was
never part of a secret coldly manipulative plan to infiltrate 
Voldemort's camp. The fact is that when Snape came to Dumbledore 
with what Dumbledore presumed to be sincere remorse, Dumbledore 
helped him to turn to the Light side rather than die like Regulus or 
Karkaroff. His trust in Snape was a by product of his fight against 
Voldemort's increasing power, not an inherent part of The Great 
Master Plan.
And as for folly and injustice, what did you expect? I know Harry 
Potter is a fantasy story but really, a world where there is no 
injustice and epitome of goodness is infallible and makes no 
mistakes, and has a Great Master Plan in which everything is all 
rainbows and butterflies.....now thats what I call trite.


> 
> 
> Carol wrote:
> > How, if I dare ask, is it "insipid and morally revolting" for 
> > the protagonist to grow up, to know and understand more at 
> > seventeen than he did at eleven? Why have the books at all if 
> > the child protagonist knows no more about anything except how 
> > to cast a spectacular spell or two at the end of the series 
> > than he did at the beginning? I honestly don't understand how 
> > having Harry learn that Dumbledore was right to trust Snape 
> > (or about choices and death and all the other lessons he
> > attempted to teach Harry) would be "morally revolting." 
> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> Hmmm.  If these lessons involve making a hero out of a child 
> abuser, and that is what Snape most definitely is, I'd say they 
> are indeed morally revolting and reprehensible.  To put it 
> another way, they do have the aromatic quality of that substance 
> which is the most excellent leaving of the digestion, and which 
> doth make the grass grow and the flowers bloom.
> 

Elyse: I have never seen what Snape does as "child abuse", so here 
we differ. Teachers like Snape abound all over the world, they 
really do. I myself have one who is WORSE than Snape. She is even 
more sarcastic then he is and routinely insults any random student's 
parents. She openly tells certain pupils that their parents have 
done an awful job bringing them up. But she happens to be the Head 
of Department of Biology in my college.
What kind of punishment do you propose for her? Is every sarcastic 
teacher going to be punished the way you want Snape to be?
The fact remains that many teachers wield their power over students 
in ways that are utterly reprehensible, but they are not carted off 
as child abusers and put on Death Row.
As I said before, to expect a world where every teacher is oh-so-
nice and understanding, is an impossible fairy tale.
JKR has shown aspects of life that do not take place in an ideal 
world, Ron's jealousy of Harry in GoF being a prime example.
The world she is writing about is flawed and to make every teacher 
in Hogwarts wonderfully nice and understanding is far more trite and 
unrealistic than anything else.
I'm not condoning Snape's teaching methods, and nobody is saying 
that he is a hero. But I do not feel that he should be thrown into 
Azkaban for being a savagely sarcastic teacher.



> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> ROFL!  Primitive and childish?  You mean the natural and 
> perfectly correct desire for justice in the face of cruelty, 
> abuse, and maltreatment?  
> snip>
> As for the Crucio, it does seem an imperative with many that 
> Harry not use it.  Interestingly enough, Snape's use of the AK 
> seems perfectly all right.  Now why on Earth is that?  Because it 
> was part of DD's plan?  Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus 
> Snape has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart 
> and therefore HIS Unforgivables are perfectly... well... 
> forgivable?
> 

Elyse: Maybe Snape suffered what in RL would be termed as severe 
child abuse? Maybe his parents beat him up when he was five with a 
belt and a crowbar, and maybe he suffered more abuse from his fellow 
Slytherins than James and Sirius ever did to him? 
Doesnt Snape have any rights to the sort to "natural and  perfectly 
correct desire for justice in the face of cruelty,abuse, and 
maltreatment" that you seem to be okay with? 

And are you saying that while Snape's AK was truly unforgiveable, 
our hero Harry of pure heart is justified to Crucio a teacher 
because of the so called child abuse he suffered at his hands?
Harry is justified to use an Unforgivable because the man is using 
it on used one to kill his mentor? I dont get it. Are you expecting 
Harry to get away with the Unforgivable curses "because Snape 
started it first"?

Elyse






From bawilson at citynet.net  Thu Nov 17 04:58:30 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:58:30 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity (Vernon) / A Contract / Harry's Skill 
In-Reply-To: <1132141138.2419.22528.m26@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAI36z41rSO02ekLobcIhemAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143127

Chewbacca 98407:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143108
>>Vernon has no blood ties to the magic, and therefore is not 
an option for me.<<

THAT WE KNOW OF.  What with Squibs, Halfbloods, and Muggleborns, there are probably a lot of people walking around with Wizardling blood who have no idea of it.  Slughorn mentioned a famous potions master by the name of Granger; what if he had had a Squib son who was Hermione's ancestor?   Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if Vernon discovered that he, too had Wizardling blood? (Which would make interesting speculation for his grandchildren; I'd imagine 
that he'd carefully examine the genealogies of any of Dudley's girlfriends.)


Geoff:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143120
>>Or would it need an affidavit, signed by JKR herself?
:-))<<

What's the old saying:  The man convinced against his will/is of 
the same opinion still.


Sheria_mccool:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143075
>>Now Fred and George went a little over board when they left the
"Ton-Tongue Toffee" there for Dudley. But if the kid was not such 
a pig then he would not have eaten it. <snip> The Dementor attack 
Harry tried to save him from but the brat tried to run from Harry 
and therefore brought the Dementors down on him. That was not the 
dark wizard either if you will remember, that was Umbridge. So you 
can hardly say that Dumbledore is not upholding a contract if the 
good guys are against them also sending Dementors to privet drive.
Also if you will remember he had the neighbor there for heaven 
knows how long watching Harry. Who is to say that woman has not 
been there his whole life and that she just has never been 
mentioned before.<<

Had Petunia never told Dudley not to take candy from strangers?  

That Harry broke the Underage Wizardry Statute for Dudley shows greater magnanimity on his part that I could show, had I been in 
his place, given how Dudley had treated him all his life.

And that's a good point--the blood protection was, from what we 
have been told, from Voldemort and his minions; as odious as 
Dolores Umbridge is, she's no Death Eater.

And we know that Mrs. Figg had been there all along; it was state quite early that she babysat Harry sometimes, but that she dared 
not make the experience too pleasant for him, least the Dursleys 
get the idea that he liked it at her house and forbid him to go to 
there.

bboymin:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143092
>>Let me propose a hypothetical showdown between Harry and 
Voldemort. Voldemort pulls his new wand and says 'Avada Kedavra' 
while simultaneously Harry pulls his wand and say 'I love you'. 
Who is likely to win? (Assuming we ignore the Brother Wand affect 
for the moment.) Love is great but it doesn't always keep you 
from dying.<<

There is no way that Harry can love Voldemort; but, he has seen enough to at least feel sympathy for Tom Riddle, and sympathy can 
become love.  I think that Harry will learn to love Tom, and that 
love will bring the 'Tom' part of Voldemort to the fore.

I can picture something like this:


"When the Order of the Phoenix broke into the cavern, they saw 
Harry and an unknown young man seated together.  Harry's arms 
were around the stranger, who was weeping upon his shoulder.

"'Harry?' asked Hermione, 'Who's this? And what happened to Voldemort?'

"The young man raised his face from Harry's shoulder; he would 
have been quite handsome, had his eyes not been swollen nearly 
shut from weeping.

"'Lord Voldemort is no more,' said Harry,' and I would like you 
to meet my new friend, Tom Riddle.'"

Bruce





From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 07:27:00 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:27:00 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlh686+gkp4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlhbc4+5iv1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143128


> 
> > 
> > Lupinlore wrote:
> > ROFL!  Primitive and childish?  You mean the natural and 
> > perfectly correct desire for justice in the face of cruelty, 
> > abuse, and maltreatment?  
> > snip>
> > As for the Crucio, it does seem an imperative with many that 
> > Harry not use it.  Interestingly enough, Snape's use of the AK 
> > seems perfectly all right.  Now why on Earth is that?  Because it 
> > was part of DD's plan?  Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus 
> > Snape has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart 
> > and therefore HIS Unforgivables are perfectly... well... 
> > forgivable?
> > 

Julie:
Of course there is a natural desire for justice in the face
of cruelty. But Harry crucioing Snape would not be justice, 
it would be revenge. There's also a natural human desire for
that, but this is where maturity rears its head. Maturity is
not giving in to that desire, and primitive childishness is
giving in. So far Harry has acted out of childishness. 

And yes, most see it as imperative that Harry not use the
Crucio, at least *not* the way he's tried to use it so far,
out of anger and vengeance. This is because Harry is the
HERO of the story. The HERO is supposed to rise above the
lesser humans of the story, even if it's a struggle to bring
that noble self to the fore (and the struggle is what makes
it ultimately worthwhile, for him, and for us). 

As to whether Unforgivables are ultimately forgivable, it
depends on the intent. Aurors have used Unforgivables, 
presumably without horrible damage to their souls, because
their intent was Good. If Harry must use an Unforgivable
to aid the side of Good, then it may ultimately be forgiven.
And if Snape's intent when casting the AK was to aid the
side of Good, rather than to aid Evil or simply to save
himself, then it may also ultimately be forgiven. (Or if
"forgiven" is too much for an Unforgivable, then at least
it might be understood and excused.)

Julie 
(who's still not quite sure how unforgivable an Unforgivable
really is in JKR's Wizarding World)








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 17 07:43:02 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:43:02 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlgei6+du4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlhca6+qsnr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143130

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rklarreich" <rklarreich at a...> 
wrote:

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rklarreich" <rklarreich at a...>
wrote:

Roberta:
> To reinforce what a_svirn wrote in reply to this quote, all this
> proves is that Petunia and Vernon made an educated guess, based on
> Harry's parentage. They could only have known *for sure* that he
was
> a wizard if Dumbledore specifically told them so in his letter, and
> as we do not know the contents of the letter, we cannot assume that
> he did so. If he didn't, then the Dursleys guessed that Harry had
> probably inherited his parents' abilities and decided to try
> to "stamp it out of him" preemptively.

<snip>

> Well, Harry's parents have just been killed by Voldemort, who tried
> to kill Harry too but got vaporized instead, and in order to
protect
> Harry from further attempts on his life by remaining Death Eaters,
> Dumbledore would like Petunia to take him in order to seal a charm
> Dumbledore has cast involving Harry's mother's sacrifice. That all
> seems like reasonable background information to put in the letter.
>
> Beyond that, we can speculate that Dumbledore also told the
Dursleys
> that Harry has definitely inherited his parents' magical ability
> (which Dumbledore would know, having privileged access to the
> Hogwarts Quill) and that when he is eleven he will be offered a
place
> at Hogwarts. It is certainly reasonable to expect that Dumbledore
> would place this information at the Dursleys' disposal from the
> beginning, as a courtesy, but until we see the actual letter, this
is
> all speculation, NOT canon.

Geoff:
Yes, but the reactions of both Vernon and Petunia...

"We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish.....
Wizard indeed!"

"Knew!.... Knew! Of course we knew...."

(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)

...are too extreme to suggest that they just guessed. Petunia's
vitriolic reply and the triple use of "knew" is too strong. I think
that if your scenario was correct, she would have said something like:

"We guessed what you'd be like..." or

"When odd things started happening, it was too much like my dratted
sister..."

There is also evidence that Dumbledore had had to tell the Dursleys
something of what had happened to Lily and James...

"- and then, if you please, she went and got herself blown up and we
got landed with you!"

(ibid.p.44)









From rklarreich at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 08:10:59 2005
From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:10:59 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlhca6+qsnr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlhduj+gr2u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143131

Roberta wrote earlier:
> > Well, Harry's parents have just been killed by Voldemort, who 
> > tried to kill Harry too but got vaporized instead, and in order to
> > protect Harry from further attempts on his life by remaining 
> > Death Eaters, Dumbledore would like Petunia to take him in order 
> > to seal a charm Dumbledore has cast involving Harry's mother's 
> > sacrifice. That all seems like reasonable background information 
> > to put in the letter.
> >
> > Beyond that, we can speculate that Dumbledore also told the
> > Dursleys that Harry has definitely inherited his parents' magical 
> > ability <snip> but until we see the actual letter, this is all 
> > speculation, NOT canon.
 
Geoff:
> "We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish.....
> Wizard indeed!"
> 
> "Knew!.... Knew! Of course we knew...."
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.43-44 UK edition)
> 
> ...are too extreme to suggest that they just guessed. Petunia's
> vitriolic reply and the triple use of "knew" is too strong. I think
> that if your scenario was correct, she would have said something 
> like:
> 
> "We guessed what you'd be like..." or
> 
> "When odd things started happening, it was too much like my dratted
> sister..."


Roberta:
But that's pretty much what she does say.  I don't have a copy of the 
book to give the exact quote, but right after the "Knew" bit you 
quote above, she says something like:  "How could you be anything 
else, my dratted sister being what she was?"

In other words, *that's* how she "knew."  Her dratted sister was a 
witch, so of course Harry would turn out to be a wizard.  She starts 
by saying that she knew (i.e. figured it out) and then explains how 
she figured it out (her dratted sister was magical and it's probably 
hereditary).

Haven't you ever said "I knew it!" in triumphant tones?  When people 
say that, they don't mean that they knew "it" as a fact; they say 
this after they find out that they were right about something they 
*guessed*.  That is what the context suggests is happening here.  
Petunia *may* also have been given factual information (by Dumbledore 
in the letter) to support her inference, but at this point there 
simply isn't canon for that.  What she says is certainly consistent 
with this possibility, but it is still a theory, not canon.

Geoff:
> There is also evidence that Dumbledore had had to tell the Dursleys
> something of what had happened to Lily and James...
> 
> "- and then, if you please, she went and got herself blown up and we
> got landed with you!"
> 
> (ibid.p.44)

Which is exactly what I said he put in the letter (see my quoted text 
above, beginning with "Well, Harry's parents have just been 
killed...").

Roberta








From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Thu Nov 17 15:25:07 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:25:07 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlhduj+gr2u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dli7cj+ufdb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143132

Geoff provided the quotes:
> > "We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish.....
> > Wizard indeed!"
> > 
> > "Knew!.... Knew! Of course we knew...."
 
> Roberta replied:
> She starts by saying that she knew (i.e. figured it out) and then 
> explains how she figured it out (her dratted sister was magical and 
> it's probably hereditary).
> 
> Haven't you ever said "I knew it!" in triumphant tones?  When 
> people say that, they don't mean that they knew "it" as a fact; 
> they say this after they find out that they were right about 
> something they *guessed*. 

SSSusan:
I'm in agreement with Geoff on this one.  Look at the tense and the 
statement of timing -- "we swore *when we took him in* that we'd put 
a stop to that rubbish" [emphasis added].  Also, Petunia does not imo 
say, "I knew it!" in that "Aha! I was right!" kind of sense.  What 
she says reads to me as incredulity -- TWICE saying "Knew!" and then 
adding "*Of course* we knew!" [emphasis added].  To me, she's 
expressing incredulity that someone would even question whether they 
knew this information, NOT expressing an "Aha! See? We were right all 
along!" confirmation-of-a-supposition kind of thing.

I just don't see any reason to assume it was a triumphant after-the-
fact confirmation, rather than the true past tense sense of "we knew" 
which is implied in "when we took him in."
 

Geoff:
> > There is also evidence that Dumbledore had had to tell the 
> > Dursleys something of what had happened to Lily and James...

Roberta replied: 
> Which is exactly what I said he put in the letter ...
> Roberta wrote earlier:
> > > Well, Harry's parents have just been killed by Voldemort, who 
> > > tried to kill Harry too but got vaporized instead, and in order 
> > > to protect Harry from further attempts on his life by remaining 
> > > Death Eaters, Dumbledore would like Petunia to take him in 
> > > order to seal a charm Dumbledore has cast involving Harry's 
> > > mother's sacrifice. That all seems like reasonable background 
> > > information to put in the letter.

And Roberta also stated:
> Petunia *may* also have been given factual information (by 
> Dumbledore in the letter) to support her inference, but at this 
> point there simply isn't canon for that. 

SSSusan:
I'm getting confused here.  

It seems to me that what's being stated is that we DO know DD put 
that kind of background information into the letter [Roberta: "which 
is exactly what I said he put in the letter"] but that we CAN'T know 
DD put in the information about Harry being a wizard [Roberta: "there 
simply isn't canon"].  I don't understand that.  Aren't they both, 
especially given Petunia's reaction which has been quoted, reasonable 
assumptions?

Is the argument that the background information on what happened to 
Lily and James *is* canon, while the information about Harry as 
wizard is supposition?  If so, I disagree.  There seems to me to be 
no less evidence of the inclusion of the latter than of the former.

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Thu Nov 17 14:32:29 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:32:29 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlgb2k+pb09@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dli49t+pg95@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143133

Alla:
> BUT I think that if Snape will be punished for who he is, as a 
> package deal, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that abuse will 
> be included in there.
> 
> Say Snape indeed dies while saving Harry, but before he dies, he 
> has time to say " Potter, I am sorry for everything I ever did to 
> you". In that case scenario, even if JKR did not mean to include 
> Snape's abuse of Harry while teaching him in the apology, I as 
> reader will be able to imagine it. Everything could be included in 
> here - starting with Snape " rolling the ball" to make Harry an 
> orphan and continuing with him mistreating Harry during the lessons 
> and of course killing Dumbledore in front of Harry.
 

And indeed, if indeed we are talking about "karmic" payback then 
this would be about the only way it could unfold.  Of course that 
raises the question of whether JKR is, in fact, a "karmic" writer or 
some other type of writer (meaning does she favor karmic 
resolutions -- or if you prefer poetic justice -- or other kinds of 
resolutions).

>From what we have seen, the karmic aspects of her writing do indeed 
seem quite strong.  All of the books so far have featured turnings 
of the karmic wheel in one variety or the other, although an 
argument can be made for OOTP being somewhat of an exception.  The 
question that arises is whether the series as a whole will be seen 
as karmic/poetic in its resolution.

Another question is the extent to which karmic resolution relies on 
the theme of character as destiny.  I think that it is inextricably 
bound up with such an idea.  Poetic justice, as opposed to 
legalistic justice, tends to punish for an overall presentation of 
character as opposed to specific actions (although of course the 
relationship between character and action is always, at best, murky 
and complicated).

Which of course leads inevitably to the question of essentialism.  
To what extent is character an essence and not a choice?  The 
answer, intuitively I suppose, is that it is very much an essence 
rather than a choice.  So does a karmic resolution in and of itself 
bespeak a certain kind of essentialism?  Maybe and maybe not, but it 
does seem to at least point in that direction.

Oh, and for the record, the use of karmic here simply means poetic 
justice or fitting payback.  It doesn't mean actual religious 
theories of karma which, I know, get complicated and involve 
particular religious doctrines about action and reaction.


Lupinlore








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 17 15:30:40 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:30:40 -0000
Subject: Harry's skill and the finale ( Re:Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry Skill)
In-Reply-To: <dleob6+314q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dli7n0+ujrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143134

Jen previous:
> > Harry resorting to Unforgiveables is looking in the 'wrong place'
> > to solve his problem. Dumbledore told him several times where
> > his power is, within himself, and his power is much stronger
> > than Voldemort's type of magic. Harry just has to believe it, is
> > all. 

> bboyminn:  
> Let me propose a hypothetical showdown between Harry and Voldemort.
> Voldemort pulls his new wand and says 'Avada Kadavra' while
> simultaneously Harry pulls his wand and say 'I love you'. Who is
> likely to win? (Assuming we ignore the Brother Wand affect for the
> moment.) Love is great but it's doesn't always keep you from
> dying. 

Jen: Reading your response made me realize I wrote a flawed 
argument. Because love is what protects Harry, not what he will use 
to defeat Voldemort. Harry's power is the 'only protection that can 
possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's' according 
to Dumbledore in the horcrux chapter. 

What will *defeat* Voldemort is this: "he not only handpicked the 
man most likely to finish him, he handed him uniquely deadly 
weapons...Voldemort himself singled out the person who sits here in 
front of me, and gave him the tools for the job!" (chap. 23, p. 477, 
Bloomsbury).

Steve/bboyminn:
> Yes indeed Love is powerful, but it's not much use if you are
> otherwise helpless. Really, I just don't see how the author can
> ignore this point any longer. If Harry doesn't start some serious
> Defense Against Dark Art learning in the next book, then I just
> don't see any realistic or practical direction the storyline can
> take.

Jen: Here's my opinion on where she's going, and I hope it won't 
make your blood boil again. :) I see it as a viable option, at least.

So Harry is uniquely deadly to Voldemort himself, but have those 
weapons Voldemort handed him always saved Harry in the past? No. 
What always saves Harry's skin is some combination of his own 
ability and the help of his allies. And while JKR was diverting our 
attention to all the people who hate Harry and wish him dead, he was 
slowly amassing a large group of allies from every corner of the WW. 
>From creatures like Firenze, Norbert, Dobby, Grawp, Ghosts to 
magical allies like the DA and Order, and even magical objects like 
the brother wand and Ford Anglia--Harry has an army primed to step 
in when needed.

HBP made clear Harry will have to go on alone and he does in the 
sense that he alone can defeat Voldemort. POA foreshadowed this when 
time-turned Harry was waiting by the lake for his father to save 
him, and he suddenly realized he would have to save himself. But 
unless JKR is going to suddenly drop her theme of unity, spelled out 
by Dumbledore and the sorting hat, then Harry will *always* have 
help when needed. By the lake, Harry saved himself but only because 
he 'found his father inside of himself' to draw on for support.

Even in the graveyard, seemingly alone and helpless, Harry is saved. 
The brother wand, Fawkes' song, the ghosts coming out of the wand--
all are there because along the way Harry has drawn people & 
creatures to him who truly believe in him, unlike Voldemort. Heck, 
he even attracts enemies who help him along the way, i.e. Crouch 
teaching him to resist the Imperius.

There is a problem with this scenario: If you look to closely at how 
it works, things start to fall apart a bit--'what if the brother 
wand hadn't chosen Harry, he'd be a goner, and how did that wand get 
there to begin with, was it made at the same time as Riddle's or was 
Dumbledore behind it or what?' But I think JKR is going for the 
overall effect rather than the details coming out exactly right. She 
did say: "One of the nicest things about writing for children is 
that you don't find them deconstructing novels. Either they like it 
or they don't like it." (Booklinks, 1999). 

Now having said all that, I'd still love to see Lupin return to 
teach Harry some things he needs to know about DADA and dark magic, 
and fill us in while he's at it.

Jen








From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 17 17:40:46 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:40:46 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dlhduj+gr2u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlifau+c66u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143135

> Roberta:
> right after the "Knew" bit you 
> quote above, she says something like:  "How could you be anything 
> else, my dratted sister being what she was?"
> In other words, *that's* how she "knew."  Her dratted sister was a 
> witch, so of course Harry would turn out to be a wizard.

PJ:
Ok, now that I can see where you're going with this it's given me a 
chance to mull over your theory. I agree it would be rational and 
logical except for a couple of factors.  The first SSSusan has 
already brought up (thankyou! :-)).  

The second arguement against (and I'm probably going to phrase it 
badly so please stay with me on this), is this:  

As it's been explained to us, magic in Muggles isn't like inheriting 
eye color.  It doesn't necessarily follow a hereditary pattern but 
bounces around a family gene pool.  For instance, the Evans' family 
were quite ordinary muggles yet Lily, out of nowhere, is a witch. 
Not even "just" a witch but a *powerful* one! Again, as far as we 
know at this moment, Petunia is not. Even if you are one of those 
who assume she's just surpressing her magic, my arguement holds 
since in that case, even with both a mother and aunt who are 
witches, Dudley (per JKR's own lips in interview)is not at all 
magical.  Same genetics, different results. Magic in Muggles does 
not follow a line of heredity and therefore can not be predicted. 

So even though Harry was Lily's son, there would be little reason 
for Petunia to "KNOW" or really even *strongly assume* that Harry 
would be a wizard in the way you suggest since she is painfully 
aware of all this - she's lived it. She's watched her son for any 
hint of "abnormality" and is probably thrilled to have found none. 
Knowing as she does that her son is free of it, why would she 
automatically assume Harry has it?  

Even adding James Potter's DNA to the mix may have left Harry 
a "squib" rather than a wizard since there could be no guarantee 
he'd inherit his mother's share of magical abilities.

So no... as I see it anyway, Petunia and Vernon could not have 
*known* (and they were very forceful about *knowing* not just 
*assuming*) Harry was a wizard simply because of who his parents 
were.  Dumbledore had to have made it clear what Harry was in that 
letter...

PJ








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 17:51:03 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:51:03 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <dl89d9+aa0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlifu7+m9u5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143136

> Orna:
> I somehow can't imagine the sword acting as a loyal assistance to 
> Harry in CoS, if it was a horcrux. For the same reason I find it 
> hard to believe that the sorting hat, functioning the way it 
> functions, is one.   But I may be wrong; it would be a twist in the 
> story, worthy of JKR.
>
> I also like one horcrux to be hidden 
> in Hogwarts, because emotionally-wise it would fit into Voldermort 
> marking the school as important enough for him to place a horcrux 
> there, and story-wise, it would be a good reason for Harry to 
> revisit Hogwarts, even if he doesn't learn there. <g>


MercuryBlue:
The Sword CAN'T be a Horcrux. It was hiding safe in that Hat for how 
long, again?

The Sorting Hat probably IS the missing Horcrux. It's representative 
of all four Founders and the School itself, and is also a relic of 
Godric's, having once been his.

Now, throw in the fact that, when Riddle was sixteen and most 
decidedly the student Head of Slytherin, we know of three murders he 
had committed and two Horcruxes he had created. Leaving us a soul 
fragment (from a 'significant' death, even!) with which he could have 
created a third Horcrux. And there's the Sorting Hat, a nice ancient 
artifact with a thousand years of history behind it and connections 
to the Founders. All Riddle would have needed was thirty seconds 
alone in the Headmaster's office. As prefect and model student and 
later Head Boy, he probably had no shortage of opportunities.

And, if you think about it, Slughorn is your classic Slytherin--from 
before Tom Riddle's time at Hogwarts. Riddle clearly showed up 
determined to get the upper hand, and got it. The Slytherin kids who 
arrived a few years later looked at the acknowledged leader of their 
House and imitated his style. The kids a few years after them copied 
their upperclassmen, and so on. So we have a ripple effect. The best 
way to get power in Slytherin House is to use the same methods as 
those who already have power.

And nowhere along the line does there seem to have been anyone who 
managed to get any sort of following in Slytherin any other way.

But if the Sorting Hat became a Horcrux in Riddle's sixth or seventh 
year, that rather explains that, doesn't it? That soul fragment 
probably skewed the Hat's definition of 'ambition'. That would land 
more students willing to model themselves on Riddle to gain power 
into Slytherin, rather than the other Houses. Thereby tilting the in-
House power balance towards that faction (which had always existed in 
Slytherin, just hadn't dominated). The other Slytherins, not wanting 
to be on the losing side, promptly switched their allegiance to the 
newly dominant faction. So your portrait of the average Slytherin now 
looks suspiciously like your portrait of the average professional 
criminal or playground bully. Not, as in the pre-Riddle era, the 
average politician.

Think about that.

MercuryBlue









From zehms at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 16:31:12 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:31:12 EST
Subject: Love: the Opposite horcrux
Message-ID: <15a.5c58b182.30ae0a50@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143137

> Steve wrote:  
> Let me propose a hypothetical showdown between Harry and Voldemort.
> Voldemort pulls his new wand and says 'Avada Kadavra' while
> simultaneously Harry pulls his wand and say 'I love you'. Who is
> likely to win? (Assuming we ignore the Brother Wand affect for the
> moment.) Love is great but it's doesn't always keep you from
> dying. 



Szehms replies:

I think you are taking the 'love' angle too literally. 

 I agree with Jen that 'love' will save Harry in the end, the running theme 
of the series is the power of love, not the power of the avada curse.

However, I do not think that Harry will 'love' Voldemort to death....I think 
that love will manifest itself in a uniquely magical way thus destroying 
Voldemort once and for all.

Lily shielded Harry, when LV attempted to kill Harry after first killing her, 
he discovered that Lily's act of love manifested itself in a uniquely magical 
way, thus saving Harry's life and reducing LV to the 'meanest ghost' or what 
we often refer to as Vapormort.

Now I wonder....JKR states that everything in the magical world has a n equal 
an opposite action...does a horcrux also have an equal and opposite?


The Opposite Horcrux? 

Can an act of pure love (like an act of pure evil) be encapsualted into 
something as equally powerful as a horcrux? Does an supreme act of pure love affect 
the soul in an opposite manner as an act of supreme evil?
What would the embodiment of this act of pure love be?
We know that lily's act of "love", sacraficing her life for his, essentially 
created Voldemort's nemesis in Harry. When the curse rebounded Voldemort 
inadvertedly transferred his powers to Harry and gave Harry a "magical window" into 
Voldemort's mind, these tools have been and will continue to be essential for 
Harry's successful attempts in thwarting Voldemort. 

Did Lily's sacrafice, did her supreme act of love create in Harry the 
embodiment of an opposite horcrux capable of destroying a mortal Voldemort?

The essential act in the creation of a horcrux is MURDER, murder according to 
JKR essentially tears one's soul, the evil act rips a piece of one's soul, 
scarring the soul for eternity.
The Horcrux encapsulates that damned piece of soul into an object so that the 
murderer can achieve immortality. Yes, Voldemort has life because of his 
horcruxes, a cursed existence, but an existence nonetheless.

Voldemort created a horcrux because he fears death. It is that simple. He 
will go to any lengths to achieve and maintain his power; he will murder 
innocents, he will even damn his own soul in order to achieve "immortality." 

So what is the opposite of a horcrux? What is as good as the horcrux is evil?

Lily's act of love is the opposite of Voldemort's act of hate, which is why 
the Avada curse rebounded that night in Godric's Hollow. Lily, unlike 
Voldemort, cared more for the life of someone other than herself, Lily was willing to 
face death bravely in the hopes of saving her son. Lily had a fear greater than 
her own death, she loved her son more than she loved her own life. 

Another opposite of Voldemort is of course Dumbledore. Throughout the series 
Dumbledore tells us that the fear of death is Voldemort's greatest weakness, 
and of course it was Voldemort's fear that lead him to Godric's Hollow that 
night and led to his temporary demise and the creation of the very nemesis he was 
hoping to eliminate that night-so Dumbledore was right.

The opposite of Voldemort's desperate act of horcrux creation is dumbledore's 
graceful acceptance of death when he knew his time was ending on earth. 
Dumbledore was wise enough to know that death was just the next great adventure, 
and he had led his life in such a way that he had no fear of the next life 
beyond the veil. Perhaps Voldemort knows what awaits him behind the veil and that 
is another reason why is so desperate to avoid his reckoning.

I believe Harry has been deeply touched by two people that were living 
"opposites" of Voldemort: Lily and Dumbledore. Through these characters we see  the 
opposite of Voldemort.
The opposite of the hateful and depraved murders commited by Voldemort is 
Lily's sacrafice of her life for Harry: instead of killing to extend one's own 
life, Lily ended her life early to protect the life of one more precious.


The opposite of Voldemort's Horcrux curses which allow his soul to be 
immortal while damning and ripping his soul, is Dumbledore's graceful acceptance of 
death, I believe the release of the phoenix is symboloic of the release of 
Dumbledore's spirit into the next life beyond the veil. Dumbledore didn't curse 
his soul by binding it to an object with the most supreme act of hate, 
Dumbledore, like Lily, sacraficed his life willingly and gracefully in order to protect 
those lives that are more precious to him than his own.

Love is magic at its deepest and most impenetrable.

Is the love that runs through his veins going to destroy the very last 
horcrux: Lord Voldemort himself?  How will this love manifest itself in Harry?

I cannot answer these questions but I think that it is very clear that the 
mystery as to how Harry will ultimately defeat LV will not be solved with a 
'unforgiveable curse', I think that Harry will use the 'gifts'  (legilimency, the 
'window' into LV's mind, the ability to sense his feelings, parceltongue) LV 
unknowingly passed to him because Lily 'loved' Harry enough to giver her life 
for Harry.  I

 While I do think that the mysterious door in the Dept. of Mysteries could 
provide a clue.....  

I wouldn't be surprised if what saved Harry was not so simple we all should 
have seen it coming.  DD told Harry over and over that his greatest gift was 
his ability to 'love' despite the hardships of his life, and that 'love' is 
magic at its deepest and most impenetrable.....

Jen was right when she pointed out all the people who 'love' Harry and who 
are loyal to him, their love for him will surely help him in his future quest, I 
also think we could be very surprised by Snape (although those who believe 
Snape is loyal to DD may not be as surprised), I do think that Snape will save 
Harry's life at some point-this may not be an act of love FOR Harry, but an act 
driven by love and loyalty for DD or Lily.

Yes, I do think love and the manifestations of love will save Harry and 
destroy LV, I think anything less would not be in concert with the theme of the 
series.

Szehms









From papa at marvels.org  Thu Nov 17 16:44:34 2005
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:44:34 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity (Vernon) / A Contract / Harry's Skill
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAI36z41rSO02ekLobcIhemAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <42FD967B00027808@mta8.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143138

Bruce:

There is no way that Harry can love Voldemort; but, he has seen enough to
at least feel sympathy for Tom Riddle, and sympathy can become love.  I
think that Harry will learn to love Tom, and that love will bring the 'Tom'
part of Voldemort to the fore.

I can picture something like this:
<SNIP of the scene which could be read UPTHREAD>


RM:

I love this take on a final showdown. Technically it even works with canon,
because even though the prophesy says neither LV nor Harry can live while
the other survives it doesn?t say the same of Tom Riddle. I guess the real
question is whether there is any hope that an untwisted Tom can be resurrected.
Personally, I doubt it, even as a young child he showed a tendency to be
mean, thieving and who knows what happened in the cave.

And while we are on the subject of resurrection, does anybody else think
it's possible that DD learned from Fawkes the trick to being reborn and
arose in the Phoenix Harry thought he saw rise from the grave out of the
white flames, or am I just deluding myself because I don't want him dead.

RM,
still believing that DD and Sirius can come back and Snape is good
and putting my fingers in my ears and saying la-la-la very loud so no one
can tell me otherwise.








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 18:52:13 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:52:13 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity - Genetics
In-Reply-To: <dlifau+c66u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlijgt+n36i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143139

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "PJ" <midnightowl6 at h...> wrote:
>
> > Roberta:
> > ...right after the "Knew" bit you  quote above, she says 
> > something like:  "How could you be anything  else, my dratted 
> > sister being what she was?" In other words, *that's* how she 
> > "knew."  Her dratted sister was a witch, so of course Harry 
> > would turn out to be a wizard.
> 
> PJ:
> ...edited...
> 
> As it's been explained to us, magic in Muggles isn't like 
> inheriting eye color. It doesn't necessarily follow a hereditary 
> pattern but bounces around a family gene pool.  For instance, 
> the Evans' family were quite ordinary muggles yet Lily, out of 
> nowhere, is a witch. ...edited... Magic in Muggles does not 
> follow a line of heredity and therefore can not be predicted. 
> 
> So even though Harry was Lily's son, there would be little 
> reason for Petunia to "KNOW" or really even *strongly assume* 
> that Harry would be a wizard ... edited.... 
>
> So no... as I see it anyway, Petunia and Vernon could not have 
> *known* (and they were very forceful about *knowing* not just 
> *assuming*) Harry was a wizard simply because of who his parents 
> were.  Dumbledore had to have made it clear what Harry was in 
> that letter...
> 
> PJ

bboyminn:

While I think you have a valid point, I think you are overstating and
overemphasizing certain aspects of it. While it is true that magical
parents is no guarantee of a magical child, it is the norm. Magical
parents are VERY likely to have magical children. That would be the
most common and likely occurance. That said, I will acknowledge that
it is somewhat rare for muggles to have magical children, but it is
even /more/ rare for magical people to have non-magical children. So,
while your points are true, I think you overstated the degree to which
they impact the world.

So, it is very logical and reasonable, and the most commonly occuring
case, that magical parents have magical kids. That makes it perfectly
logical for Petunia to /assume/ that Harry is magical, and that Dudley
is not. Yes, there is an element of uncertainty in both, but the odds
are very much in favor of the common assumption. 

So, one could say that Petunia /knew/ Harry was a wizard with a
reasonable degree of likelihood and certainty, but at the same time,
you are right, she couldn't accurately state it as an absolute fact.

Now, if we want to dabble in the realm of pure speculation, we can, as
I have done many times, speculate the Petunia received her Hogwarts
letter first and that she turned down the opportunity thinking
witchcraft an inappropriate endeavor for a proper young lady. That
would increase the odds of Dudley having magical ability, but of
course, it certainly doesn't guarantee it. 

Further, JKR has said, to the effect, that there is no significants to
Dudley, but she has also said (paraphrased) that we should keep our
eye on Petunia. That there is more to Petunia than meets the eye
(again paraphrased).

Not sure what that adds to the discussion, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn 







From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 18:06:44 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:06:44 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dl8l36+4476@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dligrk+hbdb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143140

nrenka:
> Idle speculation here; JKR shot down our wondering about James' 
> parents dying from the war (cause of death: old age and wizarding 
> disease), but she's never (IMO) done so for the Evans parents.
<snip>

MercuryBlue:
Actually, yes, she did, in the same interview with Emerson and Melissa 
that blew our speculations about the Potters. "Normal Muggle deaths" I 
believe is how she put it.

MercuryBlue








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 17 19:12:23 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:12:23 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dld0u7+2gf9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlikmn+qinm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143141

> Pippin_999  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This is a series in which childhood, but especially perpetual 
> childhood, is not seen as an admirable state. We see over and over 
again that  childish judgement is by definition poor.   I would not expect 
Harry's  childish  judgement of Snape to be validated.

Lupinlore:
> Gee.  I'm not at all sure where you're getting this from.  Childhood 
> is portrayed as inevitably coming to an end, true.  But part of that 
> coming to an end ISN'T automatically more sympathy with the adults --
>  it is in fact learning that the adults are in fact sometimes deeply 
> flawed in choice and character, and sometimes even more malicious 
> and incompetent than the child originally thought.  Think of the 
> different views of Fudge, for instance, or your bete noir, Lupin, 
> that Harry gains as he grows older.  I'm not at all sure the message 
> is "It's great and glorious to grow up and throw aside the false 
> images of wretched childhood," but something more like "Growing up 
> is inevitable and unfortunately very painful in part due to the fact 
> that the failings and foolishness and malice of adults become so 
> much more apparent.  We just have to deal with it the best we can 
> and hold on to our childhood virtues if at all possible."

Pippin:
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The failings, foolishness and
malice of children are at least as well represented as those of adults. 
Rowling shows them as selfish in the extreme. It is innocent selfishness,
mostly; we're willing to excuse the Marauders for their mischief-making, 
but it is shown as leading to very dangerous and unwise actions.

Another example:  we're given to understand that Harry's continued anger 
toward Snape at the beginnning of HBP is selfish. Harry's using it to mask 
off his own guilt about Sirius. It would be poor writing, IMO, to raise this issue 
and then resolve it by having Snape be truly responsible for Sirius's end, so 
that Harry never has to confront the fact that his feelings were unjust. 

 When Harry has done the right thing, Dumbledore praises him for acting 
like a man, while the Death Eaters are constantly compared to babies.
The one virtue the children have is the ability to detect  BS. 
However, Dumbledore is at least as good at detecting insincerity as Harry is, 
though he doesn't always indicate right away that he's caught on. His words
make clear that he knew about Quirrell and Lockhart before Harry did. 

But deception in the Potterverse, as practiced by the masters of the art, is not
insincerity. It's more like method acting. The occlumens doesn't speak 
words in opposition to his feelings, he actually shuts those feelings down,
and in some way manages to associate the "appropriate" feeling with the lie.
So Fake!Moody was truly paranoid, truly loathed the Death Eaters that walked
free, and truly wished Neville to see him as a friend. Yes, Dumbledore was
fooled. But so was Harry. 

If Snape or somebody has been fooling Dumbledore all these years, it's
not likely that Harry will see through them just by virtue of his ability to
detect insincerity. It's never been enough before.

The adult ability to put logic over gut feelings, maturity in other words, is
what's been necessary in every book to solve the mystery. Gut feelings are
fine when you're confronting evil that has shown itself, but evil in hiding 
can only be exposed by logic, which Harry is always failing to apply. 

Harry didn't even solve the Draco mystery; he never figured out Draco's plan 
or   who his target was, while Dumbledore knew (or so he says) all along. 
(It isn't that Dumbledore didn't *know* Draco was trying to get Death Eaters 
into the castle, it's that he didn't believe there was any way Draco could 
succeed.) And Dumbledore knew, better than Harry, that Draco did not sincerely 
wish to be a murderer. I'd say Dumbledore has a better track record than
Harry at figuring out who the bad guys are.

Pippin







From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 17 19:16:34 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:16:34 -0000
Subject: Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)
In-Reply-To: <dlg580+u5es@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlikui+juel@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143142

> >Lupinlore
> <snip>
> >Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus
> >Snape has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart
> >and therefore HIS Unforgivables are perfectly... well...
> >forgivable?
> 
> Orna:
> 
> It doesn't seem forgivable for anyone, and actually there seems to 
be 
> quite a consensus between ESE!Snape-fans and DDM!Snape-fans, 
including 
> Grey-Snape-fans, that Snape isn't going to survive this way or the 
> other. My understanding of this is that his AK is just 
unforgivable, 
> in the sense, that nobody can morally or psychologically imagine 
> him "living happily after". 

Lucianam:

There's no denying AK is 'unforgivable', since it is classified as 
such in canon. I'm not sure its unforgivability is absolute, though. 
Sure, we have three horrible curses that will get you a life-long 
sentence in Azkaban, but notice they won't get you a death sentence. 
Wizarding law won't torture you to madness either, in case that was 
the crime you committed. 

These were perhaps ridiculous examples as not all fans might be 
expecting eye-for-an-eye punishment for Snape.  I'm just saying that 
in the very application of the Law there is some degree of 
forgiveness already. So why shouldn't there be hope for anything 
else than death for Snape? 

I agree with you, though, on happy ever after Snape. IMO, Not Gonna 
Happen! JKR has ruthlessly punished everybody's flaws until now. I 
don't see why she would spare Snape, who is filled with 
imperfections to the brim and has a dead Hogwarts headmaster to 
answer for.

Between the possibilities of Surviving Snape and Forced to Live with 
Remorse Snape, JKR might very well choose life for him, perhaps in 
Azkaban. Maybe it won't be so freakishly unbearable now the 
Dementors no longer guard it, so it wouldn't be too sadistic of JKR 
to write that ending (my opinion).

As for Snape being good, bad or grey... In fact Snape threads 
threaten me, not because of the posters which are great (Snape seems 
to bring about fantastic posts, more than any other topics 
here!!!) but Snape himself scares the living daylights out of me. I 
love the guy and sometimes fear I totally misread him. He's got me 
completely baffled and bewitched. Er. That probably means all my 
Snape-opinions are in great danger of being wrong.

Anyway, I agree with the people who think it's too late for JKR to 
effectively pull Good Snape now. I wish I remembered the posts and 
posters, but basically the idea is the great difficulty of writing 
something that won't sound like 'Hey, remember all those questions 
Bellatrix asked me in Spinner's end? I lied!'. Or a huge chapter 
going through each and every one of those questions again, giving a 
different explanation that would show Snape in a non-Voldemort's 
partisan light. If she manages to write something other than that, 
frankly I think it will have to take up chapters and chapters of 
book 7, because then she would have to show Snape (or other 
characters) doing things that would take the reader's mind back to 
Chapter 2 of HBP and make the reader see that Snape was lying to 
Bellatrix. 

Of course I'm not writing the HP books so those are just my partial-
view hindered thoughts. Perhaps the author, who has access to the 
complete and unabridged picture, has figured out a way to wriggle 
out of this hole years before she wrote Chapter 2 of HBP (until I 
see her doing the actual wriggling out, I'll think of that Chapter 
as 'How JKR, in a heavy-handed and just a bit tiresome way, pinned a 
Villain's badge to Snape's robes').

And don't forget! I'm bewitched by Snape, therefore I must be wrong! 
Bet your money on DDM!Snape.

Not seriously, Lucianam






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 19:36:17 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:36:17 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlikmn+qinm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlim3h+ot3s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143143

> Pippin:
> I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The failings, 
foolishness and
> malice of children are at least as well represented as those of 
adults. 
> Rowling shows them as selfish in the extreme. It is innocent 
selfishness,
> mostly; we're willing to excuse the Marauders for their mischief-
making, 
> but it is shown as leading to very dangerous and unwise actions.

Alla:

I do disagree with your last example, I have to say. I am assuming 
that you are specifically talking about Marauders running around with 
Remus, right?

I consider those excursions NOT to be the case of selfishness, but 
poorly executed case of noble intentions - to be there for their 
friend in the situation of need. And we DO know that Remus needed 
them not just for fun, but because he was calmer with Prongs and 
Padfoot around, no?

Yes, I remember Remus saying that they were close to putting 
villagers in danger, but again - I think it was a poorly executed 
case of noble intentions, because all that they needed to do IMO was 
to find the unpopulated territory somewhere close to Hogwarts.

I think " to be there for your friend when your friend needs you" is 
VERY good example of something which children should carry into 
adulthood.

As to your general argument, well, some children are selfish, of 
course, but I do think that in general JKR portrays kids, whom she 
considers to be good people overall (not saint, just good) as MUCH 
more capable than adults whom she considers to be the good people.


Pippin: 
> Another example:  we're given to understand that Harry's continued 
anger 
> toward Snape at the beginning of HBP is selfish. Harry's using it 
to mask 
> off his own guilt about Sirius. It would be poor writing, IMO, to 
raise this issue 
> and then resolve it by having Snape be truly responsible for 
Sirius's end, so 
> that Harry never has to confront the fact that his feelings were 
unjust. 

Alla:

Except IF Harry's feelings about that situation are indeed unjust, 
Harry already confronted them, well sort of. Doesn't he admit 
somewhere in HBP that he blamed Snape because it was easier than to 
blame himself. Sorry, don't have the book with me right now, but will 
look for the quote if called upon.

Of course Harry did not get rid of those feelings yet, but he 
realizes what is going on.

So, IMO, it would be quite fine to switch situation now and to show 
that Harry's feelings were not so unjust after all. Just me obviously.


Pippin:
> However, Dumbledore is at least as good at detecting insincerity as 
Harry is, 
> though he doesn't always indicate right away that he's caught on. 
His words
> make clear that he knew about Quirrell and Lockhart before Harry 
did. 

Alla:

Dumbledore learned about Quirrell only when he was about to leave 
school, no? Unless of course you believe that Snape told him earlier, 
which I don't.

I mean sure Harry in first two books makes lots of mistakes, but 
Dumbledore tracking record in detecting insincerity and especially 
DOING something about it is IMO very bad. I guess better if you 
compare it to eleven-year-old Harry, but worse even if you compare it 
to sixteen-year-old Harry.


Pippin:
> Harry didn't even solve the Draco mystery; he never figured out 
Draco's plan 
> or   who his target was, while Dumbledore knew (or so he says) all 
along. 
> (It isn't that Dumbledore didn't *know* Draco was trying to get 
Death Eaters 
> into the castle, it's that he didn't believe there was any way 
Draco could 
> succeed.) And Dumbledore knew, better than Harry that Draco did not 
sincerely 
> wish to be a murderer. I'd say Dumbledore has a better track record 
than
> Harry at figuring out who the bad guys are.

Alla:

Well, we do not know for sure what exactly Dumbledore knew, right? 
And again, he appeared to disregard Harry's warnings quite nicely, so 
I do disagree that Dumbledore knows better than Harry who the bad 
guys are. Or even if he does, he does not act upon such knowledge, IMO

If Dumbledore knew what Draco was up to, he appeared to be VERY 
surprised by Dark Mark at the end.


Of course JMO,

Alla







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 19:42:04 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:42:04 -0000
Subject: Attacking Dudley (was:Re: A contract is a contract is a contract.)
In-Reply-To: <dldbup+nvl6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlimec+oa94@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143144

> >> Sheria_McCool:
> <snip>
> As for Dudley getting attacked and so on can any one really think 
> of a time besides the dementors that he did not perpetuate his own
> situation? 
> <snip>
> As for Hagrid putting a pig tail on Dudley, seriously he did      
> deserve that. He stole Harry's birthday cake was `pigging' out on  
> it, and took the cake with out even asking.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This is movie contamination.  In the book Dudley was doing nothing 
(possibly huddling in the corner, I'm away from my books at the 
moment) when his father insulted Dumbledore.  Hagrid, in a fit of 
anger, chose to attack Dudley instead of Vernon.  Which was a weird 
choice of action for a good guy to take in my, and obviously the 
film writers', opinion.  So this is actually a perfect example of 
Dudley being undeservedly attacked.

> >>Sheria_McCool:
> Now Fred and George went a little over board when they left the
> "Ton-Tongue Toffee" there for Dudley. But if the kid was not such a
> pig then he would not have eaten it. Dudley is always stuffing his
> face with candy and food.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Fat kids deserve what they get?  Sounds a little cruel to me.  Plus, 
Dudley was on a really severe diet at the time (as Fred and George 
knew and counted on) so I cut him a bit of slack here.

> >>Bruce (in message #143127):
> Had Petunia never told Dudley not to take candy from strangers?

Betsy Hp:
Again, this is a bit harsh, IMO.  Fred and George are friends of 
Dudley's cousin.  They've been invited into his home and I believe 
introduced to his parents.  They're hardly strangers.  Of course 
Petunia probably *did* teach Dudley to never trust a wizard.  
Unfortunately, the twins helped prove her point.

> >> Sheria_McCool:
> The Dementor attack Harry tried to save him from but the brat     
> tried to run from Harry and therefore brought the Dementors down  
> on him. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but Dudley has been made well aware that wizards are 
untrustworthy and cruel.  Plus, Harry had just finished threatening 
him with his wand.  So I'm not sure Dudley was acting crazy (or 
bratty even) to assume Harry had something to do with the magical 
assult Dudley was experiencing at the time.

Betsy Hp






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 19:46:58 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:46:58 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlgut8+j9d1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlimni+hht5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143145

 
> > >>a_svirn:
> > I beg to differ. Hogwarts was founded in the pre-conquest time    
> > when muggles and wizards lived together in harmony. Witch-hunts   
> > started a couple of centuries later.

> Betsy Hp:
> "They 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 
> p.150)
> 

a_svirn:
Oops sorry. You have me here. Still doesn't make much sense 
historically. I bet Binns belongs to old anti-muggle school, that's 
why his lectures are so boring. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 19:59:56 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:59:56 -0000
Subject: Attacking Dudley (was:Re: A contract is a contract is a contract.)
In-Reply-To: <dlimec+oa94@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlinfs+jid5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143146


> > >>Bruce (in message #143127):
> > Had Petunia never told Dudley not to take candy from strangers?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Again, this is a bit harsh, IMO.  Fred and George are friends of 
> Dudley's cousin.  They've been invited into his home and I believe 
> introduced to his parents.  They're hardly strangers.  Of course 
> Petunia probably *did* teach Dudley to never trust a wizard.  
> Unfortunately, the twins helped prove her point.

a_svirn:
Actually they weren't invited. And just as well: what sane muggle 
would invite the twins? A possibility to end up stuck in a canary form 
is too high. But I am genuinely interested about this logic. So if 
Petunia failed to teach Dudley properly, it's OK to use him as an 
unwilling test-subject? It's like saying that rape-victims get what 
they deserve because they fail to behave with maidenly propriety.  






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 17 20:13:19 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:13:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity - Genetics
In-Reply-To: <dlijgt+n36i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlio8v+39i3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143147

> bboyminn:
> 
> While I think you have a valid point, I think you are overstating 
and
> overemphasizing certain aspects of it.

You could be right, I'm not sure though... What I was thinking about 
was how magical abilities pop up seemingly out of nowhere in normal 
muggle families such as the Evans and Grangers but how, while they 
hit some, they randomly miss others in the same family with the same 
apparent genetic base.  

> While it is true that magical
> parents is no guarantee of a magical child, it is the norm. Magical
> parents are VERY likely to have magical children.

I agree that those are the children we hear about but, since this 
story takes place mainly at Hogwarts, we naturally wouldn't hear 
about all the children decended from Muggleborns (or other Wizards) 
with no magical ability at all.  They would normally have no part in 
JKR's story. However, she has put what I think might be a hint into 
her books... Squibs.  While I don't believe the numbers are large, 
they are large enough to have a designation of their own.  

bboyminn:
> Now, if we want to dabble in the realm of pure speculation, we 
can, as
> I have done many times, speculate the Petunia received her Hogwarts
> letter first and that she turned down the opportunity thinking
> witchcraft an inappropriate endeavor for a proper young 
lady.<snip> > Further, JKR has said, to the effect, that there is no 
significants to
> Dudley, but she has also said (paraphrased) that we should keep our
> eye on Petunia. That there is more to Petunia than meets the eye
> (again paraphrased).

I personally think you're right about Petunia also having gotten her 
letter but turning it down. But this is all the more reason (IMO) 
for her not to assume Harry is a Wizard but Dudley is not.  It just 
wouldn't make any sense.

PJ 







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 20:18:12 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:18:12 -0000
Subject: Love: the Opposite horcrux
In-Reply-To: <15a.5c58b182.30ae0a50@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dlioi4+fin3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143148

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, zehms at a... wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:  
> > Let me propose a hypothetical showdown between Harry and 
> > Voldemort. Voldemort ... says 'Avada Kadavra' while
> > simultaneously Harry... says 'I love you'. Who is  likely 
> > to win? ... Love is great but it's doesn't always keep you 
> > from dying. 
> 
> 
> 
> Szehms replies:
> 
> I think you are taking the 'love' angle too literally. 
> 
> I agree with Jen that 'love' will save Harry in the end, the 
> running theme of the series is the power of love, not the power
> of the avada curse.
> 
> However, I do not think that Harry will 'love' Voldemort to 
> death....I think that love will manifest itself in a uniquely 
> magical way ...
> 

bboyminn:

No, actually I think it is everyone else who is taking 'love' too
literally; though admitedly, perspective plays a big role in how we
view it.

As reader, across the grand and glorious arc of the story, yes in a
vague and general sense 'love can conquer all'. But that is very
different from the perspective of the characters, and presumably, we
want the characters to act somewhat logically and consistently in the
story.

So, from Harry's perspective, or Ron's or Hermione's or McGonagall's
or Dumbledore's, Harry has a very hard task ahead of him, actually
several very hard tasks. 

Fact: Harry has to kill Voldemort (again, from Harry current perspective).
Fact: No one is teaching him how or giving him the tools and resources
to do the job.

Fact: Harry has a Horde of DE's and DE supporters out for his blood.
Fact: No one is giving Harry the tools to deal with that.

It is very likely that Harry will have to face Dementors, giants,
werewolves, and DE's before he ever gets to Voldemort. Like it or not,
he has to be able to deal with those situations in a practical and
logical way. It would be irrational to depend on blind dumb luck forever. 

Fact: Harry has to find the Horcruxes, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, he has to
be able to spot and disarm the many enchantments that are likely
protecting the Horcruxes as we saw demonstrated very well in the cave.
Fact: Harry doesn't know how to spot magically enchanted objects, he
has never been taught complex and dangerous curse breaking, he has
never been taught how to destroy the Horcruxes themselves. 

In otherwords, from Harry's perspective and the perspective of every
other good character in the books, Harry is wholly and completely
unprepared for the task at hand. To a limited extent, I do blame
Harry, but Harry has only truly known of his fate for a short period
of time. His own lack of preparedness is understandable. But others
have know far more that Harry does, and for far longer than Harry has,
and they have been incompetently unresponse to Harry's needs and his fate.

 
> Szehms concludes:
> 
> Yes, I do think love and the manifestations of love will save
> Harry and destroy LV, I think anything less would not be in 
> concert with the theme of the series.
> 
> Szehms


bboyminn:

To say 'love will conquer Voldemort' is all good and well, but how?
What are the practical aspect of it. Think of it from Harry
perspective and ask yourself if you would really send a soldier into
battle who was untrained and unarmed? Would you really be cold enough
to tell him that 'love conquers all' and send him off? 

>From Harry's perspective, he has several task to accomplish, and
accomplishing those task requires skills, and in the meantime, he has
to stay alive against the onslaught of DE and Dark Creatures. Like it
or not, Love or not, Harry is in desperate need of practical skills
which he is being denied. Like it or not, somehow Harry needs to
obtain the Horcruxes and that task requires skills that he has been
denied. Like it or not, Harry has to overcome protective enchantments
around those Horcruxes, and he has been denied the skills necessary to
do that. Like it or not, Harry is facing an army of dangerous
opposition, and he virtually has to face them alone, and he has been
denied the skills to do just that. 

No reasonable and rational person would accept facing such potential
dangers untrained and unskilled, denied the knowledge he needs to
conquer the tasks that face him. Either Harry and everyone around him
start given Harry some serious training, or all reason and logic is
gone from the story. A quirky catch phrase of 'love conquer all' is
nice, but knowing this leave Harry unprepared for the practical
aspects of what he has to do.

Yes, to the reader, in the end, Love can conquer all, but to a 17 year
old wizard facing insurmountable tasks, you damn well better hone your
skills and gather your resources. To do otherwise is irrational and
illogical.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 20:22:53 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:22:53 -0000
Subject: All of a Piece (was re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dlgp6u+p2v5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlioqt+ocql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143149


> Carol wrote:
> Snape has also lost his position in the Order, the (grudging) 
respect
> of his former colleagues, his freedom, his mentor--in short,
> everything except the tenuous and incomplete trust of the Dark Lord.
> He is in danger from both sides, a hunted man, perhaps a haunted man
> if the hell that showed in his face in "The Flight of the Prince"
> reflects the remorse I believe he feels.
> 
> Punish him? He's already being punished! What "karmic" justice or
> retribution for his "abuse" of the students does he deserve in
> addition to his present condition? A taunt or tongue-lashing from
> Harry? A Crucio from the pure-souled hero, who will no longer be
> pure-souled if he ever successfully casts one?

Thank you, Carol! I've been contemplating a post with a similar 
message for a couple of days now. I don't think there's any need to 
take up lots of Book 7 page-time with Snape being made miserable. 
(Though I don't doubt we'll get to see a little of it). I think it 
could work just as well to let us know he has been made miserable for 
the past umpteen years, ever since he made his fateful decision to 
join the Death Eaters. Something which IMO has been at least hinted 
at throughout the series.

--zgirnius, who very much appreciated all of Carol's well written and 
satisfying post.






From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 21:57:58 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:57:58 -0000
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dlgld4+20k5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dliud6+mrcq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143150

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
>
> Christine wrote:
> >
> > So if we all agree that a boggart can do magic to some extent, 
this
> is my question: as the boggart is an animal in its purest form, and 
> therefore in its purest form has limited intelligence, how will it 
be
> able to perform any sort of magic requiring human knowledge, even if
> it takes on the shape of a human?  So it can turn into a being with
> the *power* to perform magic, but will it have the
> intelligence/knowledge necessary to do so?
> > 
> > Christine
> 
> 
> Carol responds:
<snip>
> If I'm right and a Boggart is a spirit rather than an animal, it
> wouldn't need any form of intelligence, just the magical ability to
> discern a specific fear and imitate the appearance and behavior of 
the
> thing or person that the witch or wizard fears, including a specific
> set of spoken words ("I'm sorry to inform you, Miss Granger, that 
you
> have failed all your classes.") It's all, as someone else said, a
> specific form of Legilimency. No thought or effort required. It does
> what all Boggarts do simply by virtue of being a Boggart. It can't 
be
> trained to do anything else, as an animal could. It has no self, no
> real being, no essence. The apparent power of Harry's Boggart came,
> IMO, from Harry himself, from his fear of Dementors rather than from
> the Boggart itself.
> 
> Carol, hoping that this interpretation makes some degree of sense 
but
> by no means committed to it
>

n_longbottom01:

It seems like the Boggart's power (taking the form of your worst 
fear) is just a defense mechanisim.  All they want to do is hang out 
in a dark cabinet somewhere.  When they are disturbed, they take the 
shape of your worst fear to scare you off, so that they can go back 
to hanging out in the dark cabinet without being bothered.

The Boggarts don't seem to be all that intelegent... they get 
confused when confronted with a group of people, because they can't 
figure out what scary thing to turn into.  If Harry's worst fear wear 
Voldemort, and the Boggart took that form, the threat of the Boggart-
Voldemort doing complex magic wouldn't come from the Boggart.  The 
Boggart doesn't think, "Ah ha!  I'm the most powerful dark wizard in 
the world, what bad thing should I do next."  Instead, the treat 
comes from Harry's fear, because the Boggart is only acting out 
Harry's fear.  If Harry is afraid that Voldemort is going to start 
casting AK, then maybe the Boggart would cast AK.  The question is, 
would the AK have any effect?

I have two different theories about this.

1).  The Boggart can't do any magic beyond reading your mind to find 
out your worst fear and taking that form.  The reason that Harry 
feels the effect of a real Dementor when he is attacked by a Boggart-
Dementor is because Bogarts and Dementors are related creatures (or 
beings/spirits).  The Dementors detect and make you relive your worst 
memories because they feed on fear and suffering.  The Bogarts don't 
necessarily feed on fear, but their defense mechanisim works in a 
very similar way to the way a Dementors power works.  The Boggart 
seems to be able to "do magic" when it is in Dementor form only 
because the Dementor's powers are similar to its own.

2).  The Boggart can do magic, and the strength of that magic is 
powered by the fear that it is able to generate.  The boggart-moon 
doesn't cause Lupin any discomfort at all because Lupin isn't afraid 
of the boggart.  If Lupin was scared out of his wits, the boggart-
moon would have done its magic, and Lupin would have become a 
werewolf.  If Harry's worst fear were Voldemort, the whole DADA class 
would have freaked out when they saw him, and maybe the bogart would 
have had the power to cast some powerful spells. 

n_longbottom01






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 17 21:58:33 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:58:33 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlim3h+ot3s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dliue9+7tnc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143151

> Alla:
> 
> I do disagree with your last example, I have to say. I am assuming 
> that you are specifically talking about Marauders running around with 
> Remus, right?
> 
> I consider those excursions NOT to be the case of selfishness, but 
> poorly executed case of noble intentions - to be there for their 
> friend in the situation of need. And we DO know that Remus needed 
> them not just for fun, but because he was calmer with Prongs and 
> Padfoot around, no?

Pippin:
LOL! If they had been robbing the villagers' homes in order to provide
their impoverished friend with some well-deserved spending money,
would that have been poorly executed noble intentions too? They
were robbing the villagers of their safety and that's just as bad.

I suppose Fenrir just has poorly executed noble intentions, also,since all
he wants is companionship and a better life for werewolves.

Alla:
> As to your general argument, well, some children are selfish, of 
> course, but I do think that in general JKR portrays kids, whom she 
> considers to be good people overall (not saint, just good) as MUCH 
> more capable than adults whom she considers to be the good people.

Pippin:
You do? Could you give some examples? 

> Alla:
> 
> Except IF Harry's feelings about that situation are indeed unjust, 
> Harry already confronted them, well sort of. Doesn't he admit 
> somewhere in HBP that he blamed Snape because it was easier than to 
> blame himself. Sorry, don't have the book with me right now, but will 
> look for the quote if called upon.
> 
> Of course Harry did not get rid of those feelings yet, but he 
> realizes what is going on.

Pippin:
Erm, the narrator knows what's going on in Harry's head,
but it's not clear that Harry does.

The narrator tells us that "Harry clung to those feelings because it 
enabled him to blame Snape, which felt satisfying, and also because
he knew that if anyone was not sorry that Sirius was dead, it was
the man now striding next to him in the darkness."

I love this passage. Harry's thoughts, his inability to let go of his 
grudge, put him next to Snape in the darkness. Who says JKR
can't write?

> Alla:
> 
> Dumbledore learned about Quirrell only when he was about to leave 
> school, no? Unless of course you believe that Snape told him earlier, 
> which I don't.

Pippin:

Huh? According to Dumbledore, he did not get Ron and Hermione's owl,
(not surprising because they never got a chance to send it.) He went
to London and realized immediately that he needed to be back at the 
school. Hermione said that they met him in the entrance hall and
"he already knew-- he just said, "Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?"
and hurtled off to the third floor. "

Ron and Hermione still thought Snape was going after the Stone, but
since Dumbledore trusts Snape, he must have had some other idea 
who "he" was.  

Alla:
> I mean sure Harry in first two books makes lots of mistakes, but 
> Dumbledore tracking record in detecting insincerity and especially 
> DOING something about it is IMO very bad. I guess better if you 
> compare it to eleven-year-old Harry, but worse even if you compare it 
> to sixteen-year-old Harry.
> 

Pippin:
Doing something about it? Voldemort is the enemy, and nothing can
be done about him until the horcruxes are destroyed. If Dumbledore
exposes his followers before he has proof, Voldemort will destroy
them to keep the proof from being discovered. All Dumbledore would 
be doing is helping Voldemort to weed out his incompetent servants. 
He wouldn't be saving anyone.  Voldemort always can find someone
else who is foolish or greedy or malicious enough to help him.

> Alla:

> If Dumbledore knew what Draco was up to, he appeared to be VERY 
> surprised by Dark Mark at the end.

Pippin:
He was surprised  because he knew he was the
intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  


Pippin






From rklarreich at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 22:10:44 2005
From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:10:44 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dli7cj+ufdb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dliv54+rsqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143152

Roberta:
Some good points in response to my message; let's see if I can 
clarify what I really mean.

> SSSusan:
> I'm in agreement with Geoff on this one.  Look at the tense and the 
> statement of timing -- "we swore *when we took him in* that we'd 
put 
> a stop to that rubbish" [emphasis added].

Roberta:

True, but that doesn't mean that they knew him for a fact to be a 
wizard, just that they assumed he was likely to be a wizard and they 
intended to stamp it out of him.  If they were sure in their own 
minds of what he was, they would react to it the same way as if they 
had been told.

SSSusan:
> Also, Petunia does not imo 
> say, "I knew it!" in that "Aha! I was right!" kind of sense.  What 
> she says reads to me as incredulity -- TWICE saying "Knew!" and 
then 
> adding "*Of course* we knew!" [emphasis added].  To me, she's 
> expressing incredulity that someone would even question whether 
they 
> knew this information, NOT expressing an "Aha! See? We were right 
all 
> along!" confirmation-of-a-supposition kind of thing.

Roberta:

OK, it's a fair point that it wasn't an "Aha" moment, maybe I chose 
the wrong analogy here.  But again, the question is whether 
she "knew" because she was told or "knew" based on logical deduction 
based on Harry's parentage.  In either case, after ten years she 
might well be incredulous that anyone would question her knowledge.

For me, Petunia's statement that she "knew" can't be properly read in 
isolation from what she says right afterwards, "How could you be 
anything else, my dratted sister being what she was?" [quoted from 
memory].  To me, this bit clearly reads as EXPLANATION of how 
she "knew" Harry was a wizard.  It doesn't read as a separate 
statement that has nothing to do with "Knew!  Of course we knew!"  It 
reads as "Of course I knew, and this is how I knew."  If she had 
said "Knew!  Of course we knew!  BESIDES, how could you be anything 
else, my dratted sister being what she was?" then I would say she had 
a source of factual information about Harry's magical ability.

But I can accept that others read the passage differently; it really 
is a matter of interpretation.

> SSSusan:
> I'm getting confused here.  
> 
> It seems to me that what's being stated is that we DO know DD put 
> that kind of background information into the letter 
[Roberta: "which 
> is exactly what I said he put in the letter"] but that we CAN'T 
know 
> DD put in the information about Harry being a wizard 
[Roberta: "there 
> simply isn't canon"].  I don't understand that.  Aren't they both, 
> especially given Petunia's reaction which has been quoted, 
reasonable 
> assumptions?

Roberta:

Yes, and I was being careless with my phrasing here.

This all started (my involvement with this thread, at least) with 
Geoff insisting that it was canon that Petunia knew for a fact that 
Harry was a wizard from the time he joined their household.  I jumped 
in because I disagreed that it was canon.  I didn't mean to set 
up "rival canon" for what was in the letter while I was at it.

I was responding to Geoff's facetious challenge as to whether 
the "everything" Dumbledore explained in the letter was how to cook 
an omelette.  His implication (as I interpreted it, with apologies to 
Geoff if I misread him) was that Dumbledore must have told the 
Dursleys Harry was definitely a wizard and would be getting a 
Hogwarts letter in due course, because what else was there to 
explain?  I responded by suggesting a number of other things that 
would be relevant to such a letter, including how Harry's parents 
died and the blood charm.  I didn't mean to imply that we know these 
things were in the letter.  We don't.  All I meant to say was that 
there is plenty besides Harry's magical ability that could plausibly 
go into the letter.

So...

SSSusan:
> Is the argument that the background information on what happened to 
> Lily and James *is* canon, while the information about Harry as 
> wizard is supposition?  If so, I disagree.  There seems to me to be 
> no less evidence of the inclusion of the latter than of the former.

Roberta:

No, that's not the argument I intended to make.  To recap my points:

- We don't know what was in the letter.

- Dumbledore may have expounded upon the deaths of Harry's parents, 
the mechanism of the blood charm, and similar background information.

- Dumbledore may have told the Dursleys that Harry was a wizard and 
would be accepted to Hogwarts in ten years.

- Dumbledore may have told them both of the above.

- It is a valid interpretation of Petunia's remarks that she knew 
from the letter that Harry was definitely a wizard, but it is not 
canon at this point

Roberta








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 22:35:17 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:35:17 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dliue9+7tnc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj0j5+knl7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143153

> Pippin:
> LOL! If they had been robbing the villagers' homes in order to 
provide
> their impoverished friend with some well-deserved spending money,
> would that have been poorly executed noble intentions too? They
> were robbing the villagers of their safety and that's just as bad.
> 
> I suppose Fenrir just has poorly executed noble intentions, 
also,since all
> he wants is companionship and a better life for werewolves.

Alla:

On that point we just have to agree to disagree, I suppose, because 
it is the case of different interpretation of the same canon. I don't 
have new canon to add, I just think that being with ill friend and 
helping him if not totally be sane during transformations, but make 
it easier for him is noble. They did not set up to endanger 
villagers, they just did not think it through, IMO.

As I said I have nothing to add to this point. :-)


> 
> Alla earlier:
<snip>
As to your general argument, well, some children are selfish, of 
course, but I do think that in general JKR portrays kids, whom she 
considers to be good people overall (not saint, just good) as MUCH 
more capable than adults whom she considers to be the good people.
> 
> Pippin:
> You do? Could you give some examples? 

Alla:

Absolutely. The best IMO would be of course Harry being on Draco's 
case through HBP AND going to the adults about it and still result 
being disastrous. What else? Oh, of course Chamber of Secrets - no 
teachers went to save Ginny, but two twelve year olds did. I can come 
up with more later, if you wish, but this comes of the top of my head.


> > Alla earlier:
> > 
Dumbledore learned about Quirrell only when he was about to leave 
school, no? Unless of course you believe that Snape told him earlier, 
which I don't.
 
> Pippin:
> 
> Huh? According to Dumbledore, he did not get Ron and Hermione's owl,
> (not surprising because they never got a chance to send it.) <snip>

Alla:

I was not clear, I guess. I don't consider that to be THAT big 
accomplishment on Dumbledore's part to figure that out that late in 
the game. The fact that Ron and Hermione and Harry stil did not know, 
well, they are very young still, but what I am trying to say that IMO 
Dumbledore failed by not figuring out earlier what was up with 
Quirrell.



> > Alla earlier:
> 
> > If Dumbledore knew what Draco was up to, he appeared to be VERY 
> > surprised by Dark Mark at the end.
> 
> Pippin:
> He was surprised  because he knew he was the
> intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  


Alla:

Could you point me to the quote, please?

JMO,

Alla






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 22:47:16 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Boggarts & the Passage to Honeydukes
In-Reply-To: <dliud6+mrcq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051117224716.98043.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143155

CH3ed:
Wow. I like all the interesting theories about the
boggart, especially that their effects are the
products of the person's own fear. But it can't all be
in the primary victim's head, though, can it?
Otherwise others present wouldn't see the same thing.
Did the candles really go out when Harry battled the
Dementor- boggart or did they just go out in Harry's
perception? The Banshee-boggart that was terrorizing
Seamus wailed for all to hear, so Seamus wasn't the
only one being affected. 

Hickengreundler thinks the fat bald man in Honeydukes'
cellar when Harry first used the passage might be
Slug. He may be onto something there. Slug wasn't in
hiding at the time. I wonder if Slug knows of the
passage.

I've just finished re-reading PoA and now I'm also
wondering whether the Marauders Map would show you
when you're time-traveling. Lupin was looking at the
map when the trio went down to Hagrid. Time-traveling
Harry and Hermione were there too and very nearby.
Couldn't Lupin see them (the map covers at least parts
of the Forest, since Harry asked the fake Moody if he
had used the Map to look for Mr. Crouch in GoF)? 

CH3ed loves wondering about things he didn't get in
the previous reads of JKR's books!


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 17 23:00:30 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:00:30 -0500
Subject: Love, English, and Harry Potter
Message-ID: <437D0B8E.8090904@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143156

	Since the theme of "love" has been used so much in discussions of Harry 
Potter, I'd like to mention that the English language is highly 
inadequate in the ability to describe the concept of love. For example, 
in Greek, there are at least 4 words for love (three of which are used 
in the Greek New Testament): eros, or sexual love, storge, or basic 
affection, philia, or brotherly love, and agape, which is used for the 
greater love of humanity; unselfish love.

	Now, it might be said that, somehow, Lily Potter's love for Harry 
transcended normal maternal love; the desire to protect Harry from Tommy 
was connected to the desire to protect all of humanity from him.  This 
is quite different than, for example, the more personal love that Harry 
has for his close friends and Dumbledore, the love he had for Cho Chang, 
or even the combined philia and eros he has for Ginny. In order to 
defeat Tommy Riddle, Harry has to go beyond the small picture, and go to 
the larger one; he must fight Riddle for the love of humanity, and not 
just his friends.

	I'm still trying to figure out how JKR plans to wind up the series in 
such a way as to remove any question of sequels or prequels.

	Bart


	





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 23:16:47 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:16:47 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj0j5+knl7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj30v+kmp1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143157

 
> Alla:
> 
> On that point we just have to agree to disagree, I suppose, 
because 
> it is the case of different interpretation of the same canon. I 
don't 
> have new canon to add, I just think that being with ill friend and 
> helping him if not totally be sane during transformations, but 
make 
> it easier for him is noble. They did not set up to endanger 
> villagers, they just did not think it through, IMO.
> 
> As I said I have nothing to add to this point. :-)

a_svirn:
Of course they did set up to endanger villagers. It was an adventure 
and danger was its necessary element. They thought it was a splendid 
lark. I'd say though that it's not so much "the childhood values", 
but rather "the Gryffindor values". They were brave weren't they? 
They were chivalrous too (where Lupin was concerned). Unfortunately, 
in this instance their bravery bordered on foolhardiness, and as for 
their chivalry, well, they did not seem to think that villagers are 
entitled to it. 






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Nov 17 23:28:38 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:28:38 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj30v+kmp1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj3n6+5p65@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143158

 
> a_svirn:
> Of course they did set up to endanger villagers. It was an 
adventure 
> and danger was its necessary element. They thought it was a 
splendid 
> lark. I'd say though that it's not so much "the childhood values", 
> but rather "the Gryffindor values". They were brave weren't they? 
> They were chivalrous too (where Lupin was concerned). 
Unfortunately, 
> in this instance their bravery bordered on foolhardiness, and as 
for 
> their chivalry, well, they did not seem to think that villagers are 
> entitled to it.
>

Hickengruendler:

Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm not sure in which danger the villagers 
exactly where? Sure, Lupin was a werewolf, but he was locked in the 
Shrieking Shack, or am I missing something? And he would have been 
there, anyway, with or without his friends. And the others weren't a 
danger for the villagers. They did not plan to harm anybody. If 
anyone were in danger, than it were the Marauders themselves, 
particularly Peter, when he ran in rat form into the Forbidden 
Forrest. Imagine if a hungry owl had spotted him (though in 
retrospective, it might not have been a big loss). Of course they 
were reckless and I do not think they, and particularly Sirius, 
really cared what happened to other people, but I do not think that 
their actions endangered the villagers.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 17 23:30:14 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:30:14 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj0j5+knl7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj3q6+atne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143159

> 
> > Alla earlier:
> <snip>
> As to your general argument, well, some children are selfish, of 
> course, but I do think that in general JKR portrays kids, whom she 
> considers to be good people overall (not saint, just good) as MUCH 
> more capable than adults whom she considers to be the good people.
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > You do? Could you give some examples? 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Absolutely. The best IMO would be of course Harry being on Draco's 
> case through HBP AND going to the adults about it and still result 
> being disastrous. What else? Oh, of course Chamber of Secrets - no 
> teachers went to save Ginny, but two twelve year olds did. I can come 
> up with more later, if you wish, but this comes of the top of my head.

Pippin:
Um, it is just your interpretation of canon that the adults weren't doing
anything about it.  We don't know whether they weren't taking Harry 
seriously or they were pretending not to because Dumbledore didn't 
want him involved. 

They didn't arrest Draco and clap him in irons, no. Dumbledore says it's 
because he didn't want Draco or his mother to be killed. He's says he's
been aware of what Draco has been doing all year. He says he was
certain that Draco was behind the attacks.  Don't you believe him?

Are you saying that McGonagall or any of the other teachers would not
have tried to save Ginny if Harry had gone to them instead? Remember,
the only reason he could find the chamber was because he was
a parselmouth, not because kids are more capable than grownups. 
Hermione is smarter than just about anybody, but that, again, is because 
she's talented, not because she's a kid. She *is* a grown-up now, by
wizard standards. It doesn't seem to have dropped her IQ.


> > > Alla earlier:
> > 
> > > If Dumbledore knew what Draco was up to, he appeared to be VERY 
> > > surprised by Dark Mark at the end.
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > He was surprised  because he knew he was the
> > intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Could you point me to the quote, please?

Pippin:
"You have been trying, with increasing desperation, to kill me all year."

OOP ch 27

Pippin






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 17 23:36:00 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:36:00 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj3n6+5p65@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c5ebcf$abbaf080$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 143160

> a_svirn:
> Of course they did set up to endanger villagers. It was an 
adventure 
> and danger was its necessary element. They thought it was a 
splendid 
> lark. I'd say though that it's not so much "the childhood values", 
> but rather "the Gryffindor values". They were brave weren't they? 
> They were chivalrous too (where Lupin was concerned). 
Unfortunately, 
> in this instance their bravery bordered on foolhardiness, and as 
for 
> their chivalry, well, they did not seem to think that villagers are 
> entitled to it.
>



Sherry:

There are reasons that teenagers aren't allowed to work at jobs using heavy
equipment or other dangerous jobs.  There's a reason they aren't allowed to
drive till a certain age.  It's a proven fact that kids don't have the
judgment that adults do.  i don't believe for a minute that there was any
thought of the villagers, good or bad.  They were doing something fun, and
something that was helping their friend.  few kids would have thought out
the consequences.  Too many people expect the marauders to have been
thinking with the maturity of adults, and that just isn't the way it is.
they were just kids, reckless, brave and caring for their friend, but also
irresponsible and unthinking.  Well, so was I around their age, and so were
many reserved responsible adults I know today.  It doesn't seem really fair
to judge them with adult sensibilities.

Sherry




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 17 23:48:44 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:48:44 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj3q6+atne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj4ss+89k5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143161

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
 
Pippin:
> > > He was surprised  because he knew he was the
> > > intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  
> > 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Could you point me to the quote, please?
> 
> Pippin:
> "You have been trying, with increasing desperation, to kill me all 
year."
> 
> OOP ch 27
> 
> Pippin

Geoff:
If you will permit me to correct you, it is actually:
(HBP, "The Lightning-Struck Tower" p.547 UK edition)






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov 18 00:02:33 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:02:33 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's Magnaminity
In-Reply-To: <dliv54+rsqu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj5mp+d4j8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143162

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rklarreich" <rklarreich at a...> 
wrote:

Roberta:
> 
> No, that's not the argument I intended to make.  To recap my points:
> 
> - We don't know what was in the letter.
> 
> - Dumbledore may have expounded upon the deaths of Harry's parents, 
> the mechanism of the blood charm, and similar background 
information.
> 
> - Dumbledore may have told the Dursleys that Harry was a wizard and 
> would be accepted to Hogwarts in ten years.
> 
> - Dumbledore may have told them both of the above.
> 
> - It is a valid interpretation of Petunia's remarks that she knew 
> from the letter that Harry was definitely a wizard, but it is not 
> canon at this point
> 
> Roberta

Geoff:
What I actually wrote in 143120 was:
"What is he going to explain in the letter if it isn't about Harry's
background and who he is? How to cook an omelette?"

...my point being that if he was going to write a letter, what else 
could he put in it other than the information that Harry was now an 
orphan and circumstantial evidence from Petunia and Vernon ten years 
later leads me to believe that there was also information about 
Harry's wizard status, as SSSusan succinctly pointed out.

You are, at least, acknowledging that the points you list could be 
correct.

I have taken a slightly more robust line because there are some 
posters who disagree and expect everyone else to accept their 
infallibility. If this is not forthcoming we then get a grumpy and 
patronising series of posts, sometimes verging on the impolite.

I do not not always agree with fellow posters but I try to accept 
their view as possible and, if I do commit my disagreement to the 
keyboard, attempt to do it without rancour or bad temper. We should 
be able to discuss Harry and friends in a good-natured and friendly 
way.

After all, in the words of the old song we must "all be wild about 
Harry" or we wouldn't be in this madhouse together :-)






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 00:02:16 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:02:16 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <001f01c5ebcf$abbaf080$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dlj5m8+8li3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143163

 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm not sure in which danger the villagers 
> exactly where? Sure, Lupin was a werewolf, but he was locked in the 
> Shrieking Shack, or am I missing something? 

The danger was when he LEFT the Shrieking Shack under the dubious
stewardship of the Marauders.  In PoA, Lupin states pretty clearly
that they were 'close calls, many of them' when he nearly attacked
somebody when they were running around, and that he shudders to think
now what could have happened.  Dagnabit... someone must have the
quotage, but he certainly says that they were reckless and heedless of
the danger to other people.  I'd equate it with drunk driving.



Sherry:
> There are reasons that teenagers aren't allowed to work at jobs
using heavy
> equipment or other dangerous jobs.  There's a reason they aren't
allowed to
> drive till a certain age.  It's a proven fact that kids don't have the
> judgment that adults do.  

Exactly, which is why part of the point of Harry growing up, is
learning to question his childish judgements!

--Sydney






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 00:08:18 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:08:18 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
Message-ID: <dlj61j+kcm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143164

I'm wondering whether anyone else views Trelawney's version of the
Prophecy and Snape's role as eavesdropper as irreconcilable with
Dumbledore's version. The problem is exacerbated, or perhaps caused,
by Dumbledore's decision to show Trelawney giving the Prophecy without
showing the complete memory. All we have is Memory!Trelawney standing
up in the Pensieve and reciting the *uninterrupted* Prophecy,
punctuated with ellipses in exactly the same way as her second
prophecy in PoA (regarding the Dark Lord's servant) is punctuated, but
with no indication of an interruption, and Dumebledore's
unsatisfactory explanation that the eavesdropper, whom we find out
later is the young Severus Snape, heard only the first part of the
Prophecy (the same part that he reported to Voldemort) and then was
ejected from the building (presumably by Aberforth).

At this point Trelawney was in her trance and could not possibly have
been aware of an interruption any more than she was aware of the
Prophecy itself. (All she remembers is that she felt a little bit
strange, undoubtedly a prelude to her trance.) Yet she states that she
heard a commotion and saw Severus Snape standing outside the door with
the "uncouth barman." If Snape was detected and whisked away halfway
through the Prophecy *while she was still in a trance*, how could she
have seen him? And if the door was flung open *after* she came out of
her trance, how could Snape have heard only part of the Prophecy? I
suppose that Aberforth could have interrupted the interview by rudely
flinging the door open to reveal the eavesdropper just before the
Prophecy, in which case Trelawney went into Prophecy mode right in
front of Snape and he managed to hear nearly a third of it before
being whisked out, but that doesn't fit Trelawney's version of the story.

Also, Trelawney tells Harry that Snape must have been eavesdropping to
pick up interview techniques and that he was looking for a job at the
time. That's a very odd assumption considering the time frame.
Assuming that Trelawney did indeed see young Snape listening at the
door, she seems to have supplied her own after-the-fact explanation,
which does not in fact make sense considering that Snape was hired
almost two years after Trelawney was. Trelawney says in OoP that she's
been teaching for "nearly sixteen years" (quoted from memory); Snape
says that he's been teaching for fourteen years. We know from HBP that
he was already teaching at Hogwarts when the events at Godric's Hollow
occurred; he would have applied for the perennially vacant DADA
position before the start of term on September 1 and received the
Potions position (newly vacated by the retiring Slughorn) instead.
Harry at this time would have been thirteen months old. But
Trelawney's interview occurs nearly two years before this time, on a
cold, rainy night several months before Harry is born (probably around
April 1980 because DD refers to it as "sixteen years ago" as of June
1995, but an earlier date of December 1979 or January 1980 would fit
better with Trelawney's statement that she's been teaching "nearly
sixteen years") to fill what seems to be an unanticipated vacancy. But
not even Trelawney would expect a young man to be listening for
interview tips in the middle of the school year, much less a year and
a half to nearly two years before he actually applied. (If Snape also
applied in late August 1980 when Harry was not quite a month old and
was refused the position outright, why has JKR said nothing about it?
And even then, it would have been a bit early to be seeking interview
tips even if he suspected that DD was interviewing a job applicant.) 

As far as I can see, Trelawney's description of what happened makes no
sense (even accounting for her brains being addled by cooking sherry
and understandable forgetfulness regarding exactly when another
teacher joined the staff). Obviously, she's wrong about Snape's
reasons for eavesdropping, but that's not my point. It's the time
frame that's skewed here. More important, I can't reconcile her
version of events with Dumbledore's as he doesn't mention actually
seeing the eavesdropper, only that "he was detected and thrown from
the building"--most inconveniently stated using the passive voice so
that we don't know who did the detecting or the throwing. (I'm
assuming Aberforth, but where does DD fit in?)

Red-hen at http://www.redhen-publications.com/Loyaulte.html accounts
for the discrepancies with the theory that Dumbledore lied to Harry
and Snape (already DD's man at this early date) didn't hear any of it.
According to her, DD sent young Snape to LV with part of the Prophecy
to lure him into a false step--manipulative!Dumbledore at his most
heartless. I don't buy that explanation, but I don't see a better way
of reconciling the two versions, either.

Is Trelawney just confused? Is Dumbledore lying (or telling partial
truths)? Has JKR failed to make a basic consistency check to make sure
that the two versions complement each other and tell the same story
within the same time frame?

I'd be interested in hearing how various people reconcile the two
versions, regardless of what flavor Snape they prefer. (Grape!Snape,
anyone? ;-) )

Carol, who was amused to discover that Dan Radcliffe is a Snape!Lily
SHIPper and thinks that Snape will help Harry in Book 7






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 18 00:35:28 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:35:28 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj5m8+8li3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj7kg+9ttn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143165

 
> > Hickengruendler:
> > 
> > Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm not sure in which danger the 
> > villagers exactly where? Sure, Lupin was a werewolf, but he was 
> > locked in the Shrieking Shack, or am I missing something? 

> Sydney:
> The danger was when he LEFT the Shrieking Shack under the dubious
> stewardship of the Marauders. 


Valky:
Oooh - Valk Polishes her In Defense of James Shield - Dubious? Could
you please elaborate on that adjective. it just caught my eye and I
couldn't in good conscience leave it's interpretation wholly to
variable discretion. :)




Sydney:
> In PoA, Lupin states pretty clearly
> that they were 'close calls, many of them' when he nearly attacked
> somebody when they were running around, and that he shudders to 
> think now what could have happened.  

Valky:
Oh but that's exactly the point, *Remus* can only imagine what might
have happened. The Stag and the Dog were far more compos mentis than
him, it's to *their* credit that nothing did happen.

Sorry, Sydney, I do not want to assume that by 'dubious' you imply
that James and Sirius were uncaring in nature, blanketly drawn from
the pensieve scene, it's just that I have seen that assumption many
times before. 



Sydney:
> Dagnabit... someone must have the
> quotage, but he certainly says that they were reckless and heedless 
> of the danger to other people.  I'd equate it with drunk driving.

Valky:
I really disagree with the analogy of Drunk Driving. You see we have
close calls in canon according to Remus, obviously not the kind of
things that a teenage werewolf can hold himself back from turning into
all out disasters. It's a bit of a push to call James and Sirius
heedless of the danger that they put other peole in when it's fairly
clear they must have heeded it or else who kept the close calls in
reign? I understand comparing it to Drunk Driving to the point that J
and S were getting a high from their experience, but OTOH just as
driving is a basically dangerous activity not to be undertaken in a
comprimised state hence the consensus that drunk driving is heedless
and uncaring of public safety, the werewolf is fundamentally a
dangerous thing and I don't see J and S trying to handle him while
they were not equipped to so I don't see the consensus that they were
uncaring. 

My objection is not essentially with the label of reckless for J and
S, because they *were* reckless, but with the flow on effect coming
from it that labels them on the scale closer to indictable for
heartlessness. I just don't think that's applicable at all.

Valky








From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 18 00:33:25 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:33:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
References: <dlj5m8+8li3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009e01c5ebd7$b0d062f0$6778400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143166

Sydney:

> The danger was when he LEFT the Shrieking Shack under the dubious
> stewardship of the Marauders.  In PoA, Lupin states pretty clearly
> that they were 'close calls, many of them' when he nearly attacked
> somebody when they were running around, and that he shudders to think
> now what could have happened.  Dagnabit... someone must have the
> quotage, but he certainly says that they were reckless and heedless of
> the danger to other people.  I'd equate it with drunk driving.


Magpie:

Heh. You wrote this as I was frantically searching for the quote:

"That was still really dangerous! Running around in the dark with a 
werewolf! What if you'd given the others the slip, and bitten somebody?"

"A thought that still haunts me," said Lupin heavily. "And there were near 
misses, many of them. We laughed about them afterwards. We were
young, thoughtless -- carried away with our own cleverness."

I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, of course...he 
had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other headmaster would have done
so, and he had no idea I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own 
and others' safety. He never knew I had led three fellow students into 
becoming Animagi illegally. But I always managed to forget my
guilty feelings every time we sat down to plan our next month's adventure. 
And I haven't changed..."

To me it seems like Lupin, here, is pretty much giving a testament to adult 
wisdom.  As a kid he could forget his guilty feelings in favor of adventure. 
As an adult he's at least more honest about his motives and can see himself 
in the wrong.

Sherry:

i don't believe for a minute that there was any
thought of the villagers, good or bad.  They were doing something fun, and 
something that was helping their friend.  few kids would have thought out
the consequences.  Too many people expect the marauders to have been 
thinking with the maturity of adults, and that just isn't the way it is. 
they were just kids, reckless, brave and caring for their friend, but also 
irresponsible and unthinking.  Well, so was I around their age, and so were 
many reserved responsible adults I know today.  It doesn't seem really fair 
to judge them with adult sensibilities.

Magpie:

Lupin has admitted here that they did think about the villagers, at least to 
laugh at their near-misses.  But I think the point being made is that they 
are not being judged with adult sensibilities.  They're being judged as kids 
to show what you're saying here, that we don't start out superior and lose 
understanding.  In fact, I'd say Lupin is considered more mature than Snape 
or Sirius because they held onto their kids' perspective more than he did.

Pippin:

They didn't arrest Draco and clap him in irons, no. Dumbledore says it's 
because he didn't want Draco or his mother to be killed. He's says he's been 
aware of what Draco has been doing all year. He says he was
certain that Draco was behind the attacks.  Don't you believe him?

Magpie:

I'd say Draco is a great example of Dumbledore having far greater 
understanding of things.  He not only knows what's going on with him but 
understands more what's going on with him inside.  Dumbledore has often 
explained other characters' actions.  He sometimes makes mistakes about what 
people will do, but it seems like he's rarely surprised by what they do 
after the fact.

The thing about growing up, imo, is that the trouble with the adults is that 
they've made their mistakes.  The kids are all in a better position because 
their lives are still before them.  If we were reading about MWPP's 
generation I'm sure they too would have seemed like the hope for the future 
with higher ideals.  Life is often about compromise.  What kids or teenagers 
see as selling out is sometimes a sign of greater understanding.

-m









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 00:57:29 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:57:29 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj0j5+knl7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj8tp+n82f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143167


> Alla:
> 
> On that point we just have to agree to disagree, I suppose, because 
> it is the case of different interpretation of the same canon. I 
don't 
> have new canon to add, I just think that being with ill friend and 
> helping him if not totally be sane during transformations, but make 
> it easier for him is noble. They did not set up to endanger 
> villagers, they just did not think it through, IMO.
> 
> As I said I have nothing to add to this point. :-)

zgirnius:
Since I'm newly posting to this discussion, I will add my two 
cents... Keeping their sick friend company to help him feel better 
was of course laudable, I approved 100%. They could do that just fine 
inside the Shrieking Shack, though. When they all went out, though, 
it was to have fun. Also understandable, but more questionable, IMO. 
Definitely indicative of a certain thoughtlessness of the danger to 
others. Adult Lupin is still uncomfortable with that, as I recall 
(where did my copy of PoA run off to?)

> > Pippin:
> > He was surprised  because he knew he was the
> > intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Could you point me to the quote, please?

Unless DD is lying to Draco, it is all over the conversation they 
have on the tower. To pick a sample quote, "You have been trying, 
with increasing desperation, to kill me all year." (p. 585 US 
Edition). Later (p. 587-588), "Yeah, well, you still didn't realize 
who was behind that stuff, did you?" sneered Malfoy..."as a matter of 
fact, I did", said Dumbledore. "I was sure it was you."

I believe DD is telling the truth here. Which means Harry knew Draco 
was generically up to no good (true). While DD knew, on the other 
hand, that he himself was the target of an assassination plot by 
Draco (rather more specific knowledge). Neither one appears to have 
had much success formulating an effective plan to act on their 
knowledge. Both were surprised, I would say, to find Death Eaters at 
Hogwarts.






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 01:13:10 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:13:10 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj7kg+9ttn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj9r6+10jbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143168


> Valky:
> Oooh - Valk Polishes her In Defense of James Shield - Dubious? Could
> you please elaborate on that adjective. it just caught my eye and I
> couldn't in good conscience leave it's interpretation wholly to
> variable discretion. :)

'Dubious' as in, they were teenage kids who did not have complete
control over Lupin.  Any teenagers' stewardship over the situation I
would label as 'dubious'.  Especially one including Peter, who
presumably woudn't care what happened, and Sirius, who thought it
would 'serve Snape right' to get mauled or killed, I would call it
particularily dubious.  I cast no aspersions on James, on whom I don't
have enough information.

 
> Sydney:
> > In PoA, Lupin states pretty clearly
> > that they were 'close calls, many of them' when he nearly attacked
> > somebody when they were running around, and that he shudders to 
> > think now what could have happened.  
> 
> Valky:
> Oh but that's exactly the point, *Remus* can only imagine what might
> have happened. The Stag and the Dog were far more compos mentis than
> him, it's to *their* credit that nothing did happen.


Lupin says he didn't think of what might happen AT THE TIME, which
indicates that it wasn't lurid imaginings, but maturity, that brought
him to his present realization that their boyhood actions could easily
have killed somebody.  By 'close calls', I assume that people were
endangered but the situation was averted in the nick of time. 
Responsible people in charge of dangerous animals do not involve them
in 'many close calls'.  I take it JKR meant it WAS a dangerous thing
to do, but to write in Lupin actually biting something would open up a
can of worms.  That it wasn't dangerous at all, is really taking a
good, complex situation and flawed characters and turning into Happy
Golden Schooldays or the Perfect Boys scenario, for no particular
reason except to purify James.


> 
> Sorry, Sydney, I do not want to assume that by 'dubious' you imply
> that James and Sirius were uncaring in nature, blanketly drawn from
> the pensieve scene, it's just that I have seen that assumption many
> times before. 

My reaction was identical to Hermionie's, and obviously came well
before the Pensive scene, that it was a dangerous, careless thing to
do and absolutely typical of overconfident teenage boys.  


> Valky:
> I really disagree with the analogy of Drunk Driving. You see we have
> close calls in canon according to Remus, obviously not the kind of
> things that a teenage werewolf can hold himself back from turning into
> all out disasters. It's a bit of a push to call James and Sirius
> heedless of the danger that they put other peole in when it's fairly
> clear they must have heeded it or else who kept the close calls in
> reign? 

And who got them into the 'close calls' in the first place?  I can
imagine them whooping and laughing 'that was a close one', just as I
can, and have in fact seen, drunk teenagers do in cars.  Plenty of
teens drive drunk without ever hitting somebody, and it's just plain
luck, not their pure hearts, that prevented it.

> 
> My objection is not essentially with the label of reckless for J and
> S, because they *were* reckless, but with the flow on effect coming
> from it that labels them on the scale closer to indictable for
> heartlessness. I just don't think that's applicable at all.

See, I really don't see characters that way, that if I think they were
reckless they must also be heartless and therefore also probably evil
child abusers who don't do their taxes on time.  I'm perfectly capable
of understanding that not too abnormally self-absorbed teenagers can
recklessly endanger people's lives without being monsters of
heartlessness.  It happens every day. And they grow out of it.  And
then they look back from a mature viewpoint and say, "Good times...
thank god we didn't kill anybody."

-- Sydney, 






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Fri Nov 18 00:16:15 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:16:15 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj5m8+8li3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlj6gf+lf7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143169

Sydney wrote:
<SNIP> 
> 
> Exactly, which is why part of the point of Harry growing up, is
> learning to question his childish judgements!



What judgements are those?  That Snape has abused him and 
sadistically tormented him for years?  That Snape in fact killed 
Dumbledore?  Those are not judgements but facts.

Is he supposed to say, "Well, Dumbledore says so and therefore it 
must be true?"  Nonsense!  That is not adult behavior, that is the 
behavior of a slave.

Is he supposed to say, "Well, Snape doesn't need to be brought to 
justice for his abusive behavior toward me, since he was on our 
side?"  Nonsense!  Snape's behavior is unforgivable and he can't be 
released from punishment for it, no matter what side he's on.

Is he supposed to say, "Snape MUST have been acting according to 
Dumbledore's plan when he killed Dumbledore before my eyes?"  
Nonsense!  If he said that he would need a long stay in St. Mungo's.


Lupinlore








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 01:58:37 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:58:37 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dlj3q6+atne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dljcgd+t2r9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143170

Sydney:
<SNIP>

> Responsible people in charge of dangerous animals do not involve 
them
> in 'many close calls'.

Alla:

I think that they did not think of Remus as " dangerous animal", but 
as their friend who gets sick once a month  and needs their company. 
Did they underestimate danger, sure, they probably did, but I ive 
them credit for good intentions, even if poorly thought out.


Sydney:
<SNIP>
> My reaction was identical to Hermionie's, and obviously came well
> before the Pensive scene, that it was a dangerous, careless thing 
to
> do and absolutely typical of overconfident teenage boys.  


Alla:

Then I have to ask - would you think of them better if they did NOT 
keep Remus' company on those nights, especially if they learned 
about his condition in any event? Because I would not. They WERE 
teens and of course they were reckless, but I think they were trying 
to do a good thing here. Someone said that they should have stayed 
in Shrieking Shack. Yeah, that sounds fine with me, but I do like 
that they were there with Remus. Oh, as I suggested they should have 
probably found the empty territory to run on, but I liked that they 
did SOMETHING for Remus, which to me is much better than doing 
nothing.




Sydney:
<SNIP>
  I'm perfectly capable
> of understanding that not too abnormally self-absorbed teenagers 
can
> recklessly endanger people's lives without being monsters of
> heartlessness.  

Alla :

Good. :-)


Sydney:
It happens every day. And they grow out of it.  And
> then they look back from a mature viewpoint and say, "Good times...
> thank god we didn't kill anybody."


Alla:

Well, my point is staying the same, I really hope that if they were 
alive, they would not grow out of it, NOT of their recklessness, but 
of desire to help their friend.




> Pippin:
> Um, it is just your interpretation of canon that the adults 
weren't doing
> anything about it.  We don't know whether they weren't taking 
Harry 
> seriously or they were pretending not to because Dumbledore didn't 
> want him involved. 

Alla:

Of course, it is just an interpretation, but it is a valid 
interpretation, IMO since we don't know why  the adults had been 
doing nothing. I mean, of course Dumbledore says he knew, true, but 
as you know, Pippin, I am really questioning some of his 
judgements. :-)



Pippin:
> Are you saying that McGonagall or any of the other teachers would 
not
> have tried to save Ginny if Harry had gone to them instead? 
Remember,
> the only reason he could find the chamber was because he was
> a parselmouth, not because kids are more capable than grownups.

Alla:

Well, we do know that none of the teachers tried to save Ginny, no? 
Instead they sent Lockhart there. I mean, sure they seem to want to 
show the world how incompetent Lockhart is, but woudn't the truly 
capable adult I don't know ask Lockhart where Chamber is and try to 
go there themselves?

Do they even know that only Parselmouth can open the Chamber? Again 
it does not stop them from asking Lockhart to go there and that is 
exactly what forces Harry and Ron to act IMO - seeing  the 
incompetency of one adult whom other teachers assigned the job.





 
> > > Pippin:
> > > He was surprised  because he knew he was the
> > > intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  
> > 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Could you point me to the quote, please?
> 
> Pippin:
> "You have been trying, with increasing desperation, to kill me all 
year."


Alla:

Thanks, but that is not what I meant. I was trying to say that we 
don't know the reason for Dumbledore's surprise. If he indeed knows 
what Draco's task was AND knows every detail of Draco does, woudn't 
it  be more logical for him to know that Draco repaired the cabinet 
and DE would be in Hogwarts that night.

Am I making sense? If Dumbledore knew as much about Draco's 
activities as he claims, it makes no sense to me that he was 
surprised.

JMO,

Alla






From zehms at aol.com  Thu Nov 17 23:26:40 2005
From: zehms at aol.com (zehms at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:26:40 EST
Subject: Love: the Opposite horcrux
Message-ID: <25c.16d9a76.30ae6bb0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143171

Steve/bboyminn:
To say 'love will conquer Voldemort' is all good and well, but how?
What are the practical aspect of it. Think of it from Harry
perspective and ask yourself if you would really send a soldier into
battle who was untrained and unarmed? Would you really be cold enough
to tell him that 'love conquers all' and send him off? 
<SNIP>
Yes, to the reader, in the end, Love can conquer all, but to a 17 year
old wizard facing insurmountable tasks, you damn well better hone your
skills and gather your resources. To do otherwise is irrational and
illogical.




szehms replies:

I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics.

I wrote a very long logical argument making the case that Love will save 
Harry IN THE END.

Your points are related more to Harry's initial journey and quest: destroying 
the horcruxes.

First of all, I think you underestimate Harry's talents.  Harry is more 
gifted than he even realizes, just because he is constantly telling others the 
"pure dumb luck" has saved him throughout his many trials in the sereis, does not 
mean that this is so.  Harry underestimates his powers, I think we will see a 
much more mature Harr in book 7, a Harry with more confidence in his abilities.

I also think that Harry is a more gifted legilimens than he knows.  I wtote 
this before, but I think that in OOTP when Harry is taking the O.W.L for the 
History of Magic, Harry is using Legilimency to help him with the test (he 
thinks to himself if only he could use Legilimency to read Pavarti's mind for the 
answers, then the answers begin to come to him as he is relaxed), other fans 
have noted other passages where Harry seesm to be reading the minds of other 
characters.

This gift of Legilimency will help him on his quest.

I also believe his rare to speak  ability Parceltongue will help him.

He also just seems to know what to do in dangerous situations, IMO this is a 
gift, not luck.  

I do believe that being the son of two extraordinarily gifted wizards while 
also possessing the unique talents of the  powerful Voldemort (along with a 
unique connection to his feelings and thoughts) have created in Harry an 
extremely gifted and powerful wizard: he is uniquely qualified to destroy Voldemort, 
and IMO to discover Voldemorts secrets, thus discover the horcruxes.  I think 
we have not yet learned how very powerful his connection to LV is, could this 
connection help him to just 'know' how to destroy these horcruxes LIKE HE JUST 
KNEW HOW TO DESTROY THE DIARY REMNANT?

I think we cannot underestimate Harry's connection to DD, if Harry can learn 
to channel this, I think he can really have an edge, IMO he will learn to 
manipulate this connection to his advantage.

Also, Harry's powerful and dedicated friends will certainly help Harry in his 
quest.  Although Harry believes he has to do this completely alone, and I do 
think JKR wants this to be Harry's journey,  we all pretty much believe that 
Harry will recieve help.  I do believe that Harry will become an even greater 
leader, but a great leader knows when to ask for help, he has Bill Weasley the 
"curse-breaker", he has the brilliant Hermoine, he has the talented members of 
the Order, I do believe that Aberforth will give Harry some tools passed on 
from DD to help Harry, and IMO Harry will discover at some point the Snape can 
be of some vital assistance.

I also think inheriting 12 Grimmauld Place and Kreacher will serve a very 
useful purpose.  IMO Harry has alot of answers to be found there.

IMO book 6 is really quite a grand mystery to be unraveled, by this I mean we 
have a very limited perspective in HBP, I do think JKR will answer so many of 
our questions quite satisfactorily in book 7, one of those burning questions 
that you ask and many other fans ask is How can Harry accomplish such a task?  
I think he has the gifts already,. JKR has alluded as much in recent 
interviews. 

 A crash course in curses is not what he needs, he just needs to find the 
power within himself, and IMO he will.

szehms








From gmeuse at telus.net  Thu Nov 17 16:04:03 2005
From: gmeuse at telus.net (Gary Meuse)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:04:03 -0000
Subject: Snape: good or bad?
Message-ID: <dli9lj+b7b5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143172

A thought from another list about this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.harry-potter/msg/136518773724e6f8

Here is an interesting outlook on Snape:

---
Tamar wrote:

I think Snape always meets the new first-years after the staff 
have had a week to observe them, so he can have a specific plan 
for how he is going to treat each kid.

He ignores Hermione in class because she has always been rewarded 
for knowing everything.  She needs to develop other ways to 
validate herself. She also needs friends; being unfairly treated 
by Snape gets the Gryffindors to support her, even though they 
resent her for being a know-it-all themselves.  In order to keep 
the plan consistent, he had to be abominably rude and lie about 
the 'teeth' incident in GoF.  Since Hermione did have other 
teachers to go to for help, he considered it more important to 
keep the attitude consistent.

He is suspicious of Harry; I think Dumbledore has told him to be 
the one who takes the dimmest possible view of Harry's motives, 
to counteract the tendency _among the staff_ to assume the best 
when Dumbledore doesn't know how much Harry may have been tainted 
by the original context with Voldy.

He tends to treat Ron as just another Gryffindor unless Ron gets 
involved in something with Harry and Hermione during class.

He is leaning on Neville to improve his memory; that is something 
everyone agrees Neville needs to work on.  He also did support Neville once, in a way that nobody noticed: he pointed out that 
Neville would have creamed Finch-Fletchley in a duel, because of 
his lack of control combined with his undeniable power.  'We'll 
be sending Finch-Fletchley up... in a matchbox."

He supports Draco emotionally with praise because Draco hasn't 
ever had much approval from his parents.  Draco is as nervous as 
Hermione on the train, but he has a pair of bodyguards, possibly arranged for by his father because his father knows what would 
happen to wimpy little Draco in Slytherin if he didn't have 
bodyguards.

The rest of the Slytherins are also probably victims of low 
self-esteem. They are generally homely and desperate enough for 
control over something in their lives to make that their first 
way of responding to any situation.  They'll do _anything_ to 
succeed.  That's desperation.  (I'm leaving out the occasional 
sociopath that no doubt shows up.)

---

"The principal difference between a science-fiction writer and 
a large pepperoni pizza is that the pizza can feed a family of 
four."
Spider Robinson


----
and

-----
 
I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype
A filk by Mariner to the tune of I Am the Very Model of a Modern 
Major-General, from The Pirates of Penzance 
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/faculty/snape1.htm#Anti-Hero_Archetype

Scene: Enter SNAPE, swirling his cloak, followed by a chorus of 
SLYTHERINS

SNAPE
I am the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype,
My condescending manner's guaranteed to make the heroes gripe,
I hang out in a dungeon that a nicer guy would wither in,
It doesn't bother me at all because I am a Slytherin.
I always dress in black with a theatrical and stylish flair,
It makes up for the fact that I don't brush my teeth or wash my 
hair.
I work with smelly potions in an underground laboratory
And have a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory.

SLYTHERINS
He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory!

SNAPE
I'm biased toward Malfoy and the other kids in Slytherin,
I terrorize Longbottom into quiverin' and ditherin',
In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SLYTHERINS
In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SNAPE
I have an evil history that's murky and mysterious,
I have a vicious grudge against that bloody bastard Sirius,
I torment Harry Potter every opportunity I get,
But when he is imperiled I am always there to save the brat.
I was a double-agent in the previous Death Eater war,
And now I go again to risk my scrawny neck for Dumbledore,
Exactly what I'm doing, only JKR can say for sure,
But if I'm caught I'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.

SLYTHERINS:
But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.

SNAPE
I'm capable of standing up to hazards occupational,
I'm capable of carrying a grudge cross-generational,
In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SLYTHERINS
In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SNAPE
In fact, when we discover the true history behind the Prank,
And learn the real reasons for my quitting the Death Eater ranks,
And why I knew Dark Magic by the time I first showed up at school,
And whether I'll make Dumbledore look like a genius or a fool,
And if Karkaroff mentored me the way he mentors Victor Krum,
And if I ever really had a crush on Harry Potter's mum,
In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind my nastiness and rage,
You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.

SLYTHERINS
In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind his nastiness and rage,
You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.

SNAPE
I'm complicated and intense, heroic and despicable,
My motives are so twisted, some would say they're inexplicable,
In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SLYTHERINS
In short, we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype!

-----------------

"Gee, the Chamber hasn't opened in 50 years.  Poor basilisk.  Must 
be awfully boring down there.  I hope he had toys."


--Gary






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 03:13:31 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:13:31 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dlj61j+kcm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dljgsr+foqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143173

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
I'm wondering whether anyone else views Trelawney's version of the
Prophecy and Snape's role as eavesdropper as irreconcilable with
Dumbledore's version.

Goddlefrood:
Certainly the relevant passages are telling and do conflict in a 
somewhat bizarre manner. I tend to partially agree with Red Hen's 
theory on this matter that you have cited in your post. It would 
account for many difficulties with the version of events we have 
been handed by Snape and Dumbledore.

I am reinforced in the view that Snape and Dumbledore set up the 
information LV received because in the Pensieve version (or so we 
have been led to believe) the memory reflects exactly what happened. 
If this is the case then unless the memories can somehow be edited 
to exclude extraneous events (here Snape's whole performance with 
Aberforth outside the door) then it should be concluded that when 
Trelawney was seen by Harry atop the Pensieve then there should have 
been some commotion from elsewhere. I rather doubt that editing is 
possible except as shown in the Sluggish Memory and if that is the 
way these things happen then there would be a silent portion that 
had been cut out (however short) and clearly from the passage 
concerned in the Prophecy chapter of OotP there is not.

> Carol again:
Yet she states that she heard a commotion and saw Severus Snape 
standing outside the door with the "uncouth barman." 

Goddlefrood:

This is suggestive of her having awoken from her trance shortly 
prior to the noises outside the door. That would then tie in with 
the view expressed above that the memory we see was unedited. It 
reinforces the speculation set out by Red Hen that Snape heard 
either all the Prophecy or only the second half and then concocted 
the version he subsequently fed to LV with Albus and possibly 
Aberforth.

There is of course the possibility, however slight, that Snape was 
already Dumbledore's man by the time of the Prophecy and the entire 
situation was a set up. The problem with this is that neither Snape 
nor Dumbledore would have any idea that Sybil would give her 
prediction at exactly that time, unless one of Dumbledore's 
instruments had previously indicated that a prophecy was to be given 
that particular evening through the medium of Sybil. 

Or perhaps as you speculate this is a case of JKR not fully checking 
the two versions to synchronise.

Goddlefrood now concerned with the lost day.






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 18 03:19:15 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:19:15 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dlj61j+kcm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dljh7j+pq8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143174

Carol:
> I'd be interested in hearing how various people reconcile the two
> versions, regardless of what flavor Snape they prefer. (Grape!Snape,
> anyone? ;-) )

Ceridwen:
I thought about it, and came up with several different ideas.  I 
think the one that most closely fits both Dumbledore's and 
Trelawney's recollections of events would be that Snape was outside 
the door when Trelawney began to give her prophecy, and was caught by 
Aberforth, and the ensuing argument made it impossible for Snape to 
hear the rest.  Dumbledore heard the commotion; Trelawney didn't 
because she was in a trance.  As soon as Dumbledore was certain she 
was finished, he Alohamora'd the door so there stood Aberforth and 
Snape just as Trelawney is regaining her bearings.  Aberforth tells 
Dumbledore he found Snape eavesdropping, then drags him away, as he 
would have anyway if the door hadn't been opened.

But that doesn't explain the Pop-Up!Trelawney in the Pensieve.  
Before HBP, I read some thoughts that Harry is using the Pensieve 
wrong, and that the Pop-Up! version is the correct way to do it.  But 
since HBP, we see that Dumbledore uses the Pensieve the same way, 
when he wants Harry to see everything going on.  The only time I can 
see where a Pop-Up! is the only course is when two or more thoughts 
are being blended to form an answer or a more in-depth analysis (the 
two snakes).

So, the conclusion I came to is that Dumbledore didn't want Harry to 
see anything but Trelawney giving the prophecy.  He didn't want Harry 
to see the room, the scene outside the windows (snow?  dead of 
night?), he didn't want him to see *anything else*.

I can get at least two reasons for that.  There are probably more.  
One: Dumbledore wants Harry to focus on the prophecy to the exclusion 
of all else, so he 'spotlights' it; Two: Dumbledore doesn't want 
Harry to see something in the room for whatever reason.

I'm tending toward number two.  But, if it was Snape in the room, or 
the door opening immediately afterwards to reveal him, if Snape's 
entry happened so quickly on the heels of the prophecy that 
Dumbledore didn't think he could get Harry out of the Pensieve in 
time to avoid that revelation, if someone else was present (now 
deceased, as Dumbledore said only the two people in the Weasleys' 
shed knew the whole prophecy), or something else entirely (bad choice 
of robes for DD? ;) ) I just don't know and won't try to figure out, 
at least not today.

Still, the fact that DD (IMO) didn't want Harry to see something in 
the room, or soon to enter the room, means that there's probably more 
going on than my simple solution given above.

Ceridwen.






From alesiaglfyn at juno.com  Fri Nov 18 02:22:54 2005
From: alesiaglfyn at juno.com (Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:22:54 GMT
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
Message-ID: <20051117.182348.729.120220@webmail16.lax.untd.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143175

Carol wrote:
>I'm wondering whether anyone else views Trelawney's version of 
>the Prophecy and Snape's role as eavesdropper as irreconcilable 
>with Dumbledore's version. The problem is exacerbated, or perhaps 
>caused, by Dumbledore's decision to show Trelawney giving the 
>Prophecy without showing the complete memory. All we have is 
>Memory!Trelawney standing up in the Pensieve and reciting the 
>*uninterrupted* Prophecy, punctuated with ellipses in exactly the 
>same way as her second prophecy in PoA (regarding the Dark Lord's 
>servant) is punctuated, but with no indication of an interruption, 
>and Dumbledore?s unsatisfactory explanation that the eavesdropper, 
>whom we find out later is the young Severus Snape, heard only the 
>first part of the Prophecy (the same part that he reported to 
>Voldemort) and then was ejected from the building (presumably by 
>Aberforth).

Alesia suggests:
I always took the version Trelawney gave Harry about how Snape 
overheard the Prophecy as her way of making herself look more 
important in Harry's eyes.  Her way of legitimizing herself to 
?The Chosen One? after being dismissed by the ?Greatest Wizard 
of the Age?.  I don?t think Trelawney knows when she makes real 
predictions.  She has never shown any indication she is even 
aware she made a prophecy to Harry his third year about the return 
of Voldemort.  So she 'tells' Harry she knew about Snape but what 
she doesn't say is that she knew Snape was being discovered when 
it happened rather then after her prediction was complete.  

Consider this timeline:
DD meets Trelawney in the Hogs Head.  The interview begins.  
During the course of the interview Trelawney slips into the 
Prophecy.  Halfway through the Prophecy Aberforth discovers Snape 
outside the door.  He removes Snape (but I doubt he lets him go - 
remember we are still at War it is the Spring of 1979 or 1980).  
By the time Aberforth returns from securing Snape for further 
questioning, Trelawney has finished the Prophecy.  Aberforth 
tells DD what has happened and Trelawney is only then aware she 
has made a Prophecy and the fact it was overheard. 

Also consider at some point, maybe not at the time of the 
interview but at some point, DD told Trelawney she was not safe 
outside of Hogwarts.  (When Umbridge tried to get rid of her, 
Trelawney knew she couldn't leave.)

Carol wrote:
>Also, Trelawney tells Harry that Snape must have been 
>eavesdropping to pick up interview techniques and that he was 
>looking for a job at the time

Alesia suggests:
I also took Trelawney?s assumption that Snape was getting 
interview tips as JKR?s sense of humor coming to the forefront.  
She is further reinforcing our belief that Trelawney is a little 
off and out of touch with the world.  

Carol wrote:
>Trelawney's interview occurs nearly two years before this time, 
>on a cold, rainy night several months before Harry is born 
>(probably around April 1980 because DD refers to it as "sixteen 
>years ago" as of June 1995, but an earlier date of December 1979 
>or January 1980 would fit better with Trelawney's statement that 
>she's been teaching "nearly sixteen years") to fill what seems 
>to be an unanticipated vacancy. But not even Trelawney would 
>expect a young man to be listening for interview tips in the 
>middle of the school year, much less a year and a half to nearly 
>two years before he actually applied. 
 
Alesia suggests:
I think the Lexicon has this wrong about this one.  They have 
Trelawney giving the Prophecy in 1980.  I think Trelawney made 
the Prophecy in the Spring of 1979 and starts teaching the Fall 
of the 1979-1980 school year.  Which would mean Harry?s fifth 
year (1995 -1996 school year) is indeed her sixteenth year at 
Hogwarts.  Now, Snape gets caught listening to the Prophecy in 
the Spring of 1979, presumably Voldemort has sent him to apply 
for the yearly vacant DADA job.  DD obviously doesn?t give him 
the job but does turn him into a spy at this time or soon there 
after.  Heck, it may be the ?true Slytherin? (per Phineas 
Nigellus Black) that Snape is; he offered to be a spy to keep 
his bum out of Azkaban.  (This is the main reason I think the 
reason DD gave Harry for trusting Snape is incomplete because 
the timeline doesn?t seem to add up to me.)   

Two years later, DD hires Snape in the summer of 1981 as the 
potions master for the 1981-1982 school year (which is 14 yrs 
before Harry?s fifth year at Hogwarts).  This may have been done 
to help with Snape?s job as a double agent.  DD states in the DE 
trials that Snape was a spy PRIOR to the defeat of Voldemort. 

JKR has always said DD never lies.  We all know he omits some 
pieces of information.  We know from DD Snape did indeed tell 
Voldemort about the Prophecy but what if there is another part 
to what makes him turn?  What if there was an additional reason 
we are not yet aware of?  All DD says is that Snape was remorseful 
at how Voldemort interrupted the Prophecy.  As I think everyone 
agrees we are still missing information about why DD trusted 
Snape.  

Alesia









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 18 03:32:57 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:32:57 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dlj61j+kcm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlji19+qjgt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143176

Carol:
> Also, Trelawney tells Harry that Snape must have been eavesdropping to
> pick up interview techniques and that he was looking for a job at the
> time. That's a very odd assumption considering the time frame.
> Assuming that Trelawney did indeed see young Snape listening at the
> door, she seems to have supplied her own after-the-fact explanation,
> which does not in fact make sense considering that Snape was hired
> almost two years after Trelawney was...
*(snip)*

Ceridwen:
I forgot to answer this in my last post, but this is only my second 
today so I can set the iron to low and put it aside (for now!)

I think Trelawney came up with an answer that satisfied her, and didn't 
give it any more thought after that.  She may even have convinced 
herself that it was her Inner Eye that told her Snape was looking for a 
job and trying for tips by eavesdropping.  Just because it wasn't the 
ordinary time to go looking for a job at a school, doesn't mean she 
would automatically think anything different, simply because *she* was 
looking for a job just then, so it wasn't out of the realm of 
possibility that someone else was, too.

Also, if it was later in the term, it might be reasonable to think that 
people would start sending out feelers if they want to teach beginning 
the next semester.  And, just because Snape didn't get hired at the 
same time, didn't mean he wasn't job hunting.  It just meant that 
either he didn't get the position he was going for, or that there was 
no other vacancy for him to fill.  Could Trelawney have thought that he 
was trying for a Divination position as she was, and that she beat him 
out of it?  She may have believed, or convinced herself, that he kept 
on trying until he got a position only two years or so later.

I know Dumbledore didn't have much faith in the discipline, but there 
is an O.W.L. in it, so he may have had no choice but to get a teacher 
for it.  I wonder sometimes if this is when they first came up with the 
idea of an O.W.L. for it, so Dumbledore absolutely needed to find a 
teacher for it, or if the O.W.L. came once he had a teacher?

I do think Dumbledore was keeping more information from Harry than 
there was to know.  Not lying, necessarily, but giving him information 
on a 'need to know' basis.  He didn't need to know who the spy was, or 
that the spy was seen by himself and Trelawney.  He did need to know 
the prophecy.  And, for Trelawney's sake, he (and others!) needed to 
know that she's at Hogwarts as much for her own protection as to 
provide instruction in an O.W.L. course.

Ceridwen.






From AllieS426 at aol.com  Fri Nov 18 04:16:42 2005
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:16:42 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dljh7j+pq8c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dljkja+1ti8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143177

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> So, the conclusion I came to is that Dumbledore didn't want Harry to 
> see anything but Trelawney giving the prophecy.  He didn't want Harry 
> to see the room, the scene outside the windows (snow?  dead of 
> night?), he didn't want him to see *anything else*.
> 
> I can get at least two reasons for that.  There are probably more.  
> One: Dumbledore wants Harry to focus on the prophecy to the exclusion 
> of all else, so he 'spotlights' it; Two: Dumbledore doesn't want 
> Harry to see something in the room for whatever reason.
> 

I think you answered your own suggestion.  If your conclusion about 
using a popup memory rather than a dive-into-the-pensieve memory is 
correct (which it well may be), it is most likely because Dumbledore 
did not want Harry to see that Snape was the eavesdropper.  He didn't 
want Harry to know that Snape is the reason the Potters are dead.

Allie






From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Nov 18 04:00:21 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:00:21 -0500
Subject: Snape: good or bad?
In-Reply-To: <dli9lj+b7b5@eGroups.com>
References: <dli9lj+b7b5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437D51D5.8080500@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143178

Gary Meuse wrote:
> The rest of the Slytherins are also probably victims of low 
> self-esteem. They are generally homely and desperate enough for 
> control over something in their lives to make that their first 
> way of responding to any situation.  They'll do _anything_ to 
> succeed.  That's desperation.  (I'm leaving out the occasional 
> sociopath that no doubt shows up.)

Bart:
I think, frankly, it's bigotry on JKR's part. Good, intelligent, heroic 
people are good looking. People who are homely or overweight or both 
tend to be evil, cruel, small-minded, and/or unintelligent.

	Bart






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 18 05:20:32 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:20:32 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape: good or bad?
In-Reply-To: <437D51D5.8080500@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c5ebff$cd4e8470$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 143179

Bart:
I think, frankly, it's bigotry on JKR's part. Good, intelligent, heroic 
people are good looking. People who are homely or overweight or both 
tend to be evil, cruel, small-minded, and/or unintelligent.

	Bart


sherry:

Molly Weasley.  Remus Lupin.  Molly is overweight.  Remus, shabby and worn,
never the impression of being good looking.  Arthur is described as balding
and again, not described in ways that indicate being handsome.  Ron is gawky
and gangling, But then, of course, he's still growing.  Hermione has bushy
hair and did have big teeth.  Again, except at the ball in GOF, I've never
had the impression that Hermione is supposed to be considered gorgeous. And
then there's Harry.  Harry has messy hair, is small for his age, has knobby
knees.  Our hero is never described as being handsome or particularly
attractive.  Sure, i don't get the impression he's homely, but he's not a
heartthrob.  Much of his popularity stems from who he is, not how he looks.
i mean his popularity among the extended characters, not his close friends.

On the other side:  The big bad baddy, Tom riddle is described as being very
handsome.  Also Draco and Lucius are described in ways that make them appear
to be handsome as well.  Bella and Narcissa are described in terms that seem
we are supposed to think they are pretty.  

I don't think the visual stereotypes of good means good looking and bad
means ugly really stand up, when you consider all the characters.

Sherry




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 05:49:59 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:49:59 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dljkja+1ti8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dljq27+nuk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143180

Allie wrote:> 
> I think you answered your own suggestion.  If your conclusion about 
> using a popup memory rather than a dive-into-the-pensieve memory is 
> correct (which it well may be), it is most likely because Dumbledore 
> did not want Harry to see that Snape was the eavesdropper.  He didn't 
> want Harry to know that Snape is the reason the Potters are dead.


Carol responds:
Well, yes and no. (I know you're addressing Ceridwen here, but since
the original post was mine, I'm taking the liberty of answering.) DD
didn't want Harry to know about Snape's involvement, true, but it's an
oversimplification to say (like McGonagall in the PoA movie but with a
different character) that Snape is the reason the Potters are dead.
Snape reported part of the Prophecy to LV before he knew who it
involved or how LV would interpret it (attempting to kill a baby
rather than waiting for the child to grow up and reveal himself as a
threat). Snape also (apparently) tried to prevent their deaths by
going to Dumbledore with the information that LV was after the
Potters. *Voldemort* is the reason the Potters are dead, with Peter
Pettigrew, the traitor/Secret Keeper, as chief accomplice. Snape is
involved, of course, but he's not guilty of the actual murders. And
unlike LV and Wormtail, he showed what DD believes to be genuine remorse.

But my original question wasn't why DD showed Harry only Sybill
herself, not the complete Pensieve memory, which would have been more
useful to *us* as readers. Obviously, DD knew that doing so would
incense Harry, who would have reacted exactly as he does in HBP when
he hears Trelawney's version of the story, placing all the blame for
his parents' death on Snape, whom he already blames (unfairly) for the
death of Sirius. (DD's death is, of course, a separate matter not
relevant to this discussion.)

What I wanted to know is why the two descriptions (DD's and
Trelawney's) are so different and whether they can be reconciled. I
don't see how Trelawney could have seen Snape if he was listening at
the keyhole and "thrown out" less than halfway through the Prophecy.
OTOH, if she saw him when the door opened *after* she came out of her
trance, as she implies, he must have heard the whole Prophecy (or the
second half rather than the first). Also, the Prophecy as Sybill gives
it in the Pensieve memory is not interrupted, so she can't have seen
him if the door opened halfway through the Prophecy. She would still
have been in her trance when he was hauled away by Aberforth.

Since her time frame is confused (she seems to think young Snape was
applying for a job almost two years before he actually received the
Potions position), her entire memory may be confused. All I'm saying
is that the two stories don't fit together to make a coherent whole.
Or if they do, I don't see it.

Carol








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 07:15:45 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:15:45 -0000
Subject: Love: the Opposite horcrux - Perspective - Then and Now
In-Reply-To: <25c.16d9a76.30ae6bb0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dljv31+f55i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143181

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, zehms at a... wrote:
>
> Steve/bboyminn:
> To say 'love will conquer Voldemort' is all good and well, but 
> how?What are the practical aspect of it. Think of it from Harry
> perspective ...
> <SNIP>
> Yes, to the reader, in the end, Love can conquer all, but to a 
> 17 year old wizard facing insurmountable tasks, you damn well 
> better hone yourskills and gather your resources. ...
> 
> 
> szehms replies:
> 
> I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics.
> 
> I wrote a very long logical argument making the case that Love 
> will save Harry IN THE END.
> 
> Your points are related more to Harry's initial journey and 
> quest: destroying the horcruxes.
> 

bboyminn:

In a sense, that is exactly the point I was making. I agree that IN
THE END Love will conquer all. But Harry is not at the end, and he is
a blind fool if he puts all his eggs in that one very abstract basket
at this stage of the game. 

> szehms:
>
> First of all, I think you underestimate Harry's talents. Harry 
> is more  gifted than he even realizes, ... Harry underestimates
> his powers, ... Harr in book 7, a Harry with more confidence in
>  his abilities.
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think we are so much arguing semantics as perspective. From
the perspective of the outsider(reader or viewer), I agree with what
you said, or at least the basic concept. But shift your perspective to
inside the story, shift your perspective into the heads of any of the
good characters. Are you really going to stake your life and the fate
of the wizard world on the seemingly hollow platitude of "Harry, you
can love'? I don't think so.

I agree Harry has tremendous talent, but talent is nothing unless it
is refined into SKILL. You could be the world's most talented chess
player, but that talent is wasted and useless if you've never played a
game of chess. Talent is in the abstract, and doesn't function well
unless it is refined into the concrete realm of Applied Skill.

I agree Harry has talent, but no one has ever taught him how to apply
that talent effectively. Consider the level of knowledge of the other
somewhat younger wizards in the story. Harry skill is not even
remotely at the level of a relatively young Remus Lupin. Harry's skill
REALLY REALLY is not even remotely close to that of Snape. Even the
twins, in there own special areas, are far more skilled than Harry.
Note; I am speaking of 'skill' here, not talent.
 
>From an internal (internal to the story) perspective there is no
practical way to apply or train for 'love conquers all'. It's too
abstract. It is a nice concept that will prove out in the end, but it
is a worthless concept for getting you to the end ALIVE and able.
Though I admit it has the potential for fortify Harry and give him
courage, and those are nice attributes, but they have limited
practical application.

So, I agree that Love will conguer all in the end. But to use that as
the sole foundation for taking yourself to the end in Harry situation
is suicide. You simply can't tackle a task like Harry's with no
refined skill, knowledge, or training. 

> szehms:
> I also think that Harry is a more gifted legilimens than he 
> knows. ... Harry is taking the O.W.L for the History of Magic,
> ... (he thinks to himself if only he could use Legilimency to 
> read Pavarti's mind for the answers,...)
> 
> This gift of Legilimency will help him on his quest.
> 

bboyminn:

To some extent I agree with your conclusion, but not with your
example. I don't think any Legilimency was going on during the History
of Magic exam. However, we have seen that Harry has a strong intuitive
sense. For example, he usually knows when he is being watch; that has
occured several times in the books.

That 'intuitive sense' could be the sign that he does indeed have
talent in Legilimency, but that talent is wasted because it's too
uncontrolled and sporadic left as is. It may be there when he needs it
 or it may not. But if Harry practices and refines that skill, then he
can use it very effectively. 

I do believe that Harry has some effective skill in Oclumency. Why?
Because he has practiced it with Snape. Those lesson may have appeared
ineffective, but Harry did demonstrate some skill at blocking thoughts
he truly did NOT want seen.

> szehms:
> I also believe his rare to speak  ability Parceltongue will 
> help him.

bboyminn:

Harry's parceltongue is the same as his Legilimency skills, it is too
sporadic and uncontrolled to be counted on in time of crisis UNLESS he
refines that skill.

> szehms:
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Also, Harry's powerful and dedicated friends will certainly 
> help Harry in his quest. ... he has Bill Weasley the 
> "curse-breaker", he has the brilliant Hermoine, he has the 
> talented members of the Order, ... Aberforth will give Harry 
> some tools passed on from DD to help Harry, and IMO Harry will 
> discover at some point the Snape can be of some vital assistance.
> 
> ... 
> 
>  A crash course in curses is not what he needs, he just needs
> to find the power within himself, and IMO he will.
> 
> szehms
>


bboyminn:

I agree and disagree. Yes, Harry has all the resources he needs right
there, fully available to him. What I am saying, is that he is a fool
if he doesn't recognise that he has to tap into those resource and do
it quickly. A crash course in curses IS exactly what Harry needs. 

One problem is, from the character's perspective, they don't know that
they have less than a year before the final showdown. We the readers
know that, but none of the characters do. To them it could be over in
a week, a month, a year, or it could drag on for five years. AND,
Harry has no way of knowing how to apply 'Love'. It may save his bacon
in the end, but until then it is an impractical concept. Since the
timeframe is unknown to Harry, I can accept it if Harry doesn't do
everything all at once, but to completely ignore the skills he so
obviously needs, is really unfathomable and completely unrealistic.

In conclusion, I do agree that from the perspective of the outside
observer, the reader, Love will indeed conquer all in the end, but
from the prespective of the characters, they are fools if they rely on
nothing but that. Love is a great umbrella to hold over the whole
story, but it is nearly worthless to the characters as they prepare or
don't prepare for the task ahead.

I sincerely hope that Harry draws on the talent around him, Bill can
be tremendously helpful, I hope Remus comes to live with him at
Grimmauld Place and that he helps train Harry, I hope Harry draws on
the skills of the twins, I hope he draws on the Hogwart teacher as the
valuable resource that they are, I hope Harry continues the D.A.Club.
If he doesn't, I just don't see anyway to maintain a consistent and
reasonable internal logic to the story. 

Love conquers all in the end, assuming you are still alive when the
end comes.

Steve/Bboyminn






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 07:49:40 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:49:40 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dlj61j+kcm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlk12k+8829@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143182

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:
>
> I'm wondering whether anyone else views Trelawney's version of the
> Prophecy and Snape's role as eavesdropper as irreconcilable with
> Dumbledore's version. 
>
>...edited...
> 
> Carol


bboyminn:

Someone already gave the prefect answer to this question. I don't
think we have two different version of the story, we have the same
story from two different prespectives. 

As Ceridwen points out in post# 143174, Aberforth encounters Snape
outside the door listening. As soon as Aberforth arrives, Snape stops
listening. Aberforth asks him what he's doing, Snape makes lame
excuses, the discussion heats up, and all the while, Trelawny is still
inside giving the Prophecy. When Snape's lame excuses prove
ineffective and Snape tries to make a break for it, they struggle and
Aberforth collars him and takes him in to see Dumbledore. By this
time, the Prophecy is over, it's really not that long, and Trelawny is
coming around.

That seems a prefectly reasonable and consistent timeline to me.
Naturally, Aberforth would make /some/ inquiries before bursting in on
Dumbledore, and that would take time. And the Prophecy only takes
about 30 seconds to read out loud, so we are not talking about a huge
block of time here.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Fri Nov 18 08:02:20 2005
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 18 Nov 2005 08:02:20 -0000
Subject: Reminder - chap. disc. of HBP4 (Horace Slughorn) 
Message-ID: <1132300940.42.91129.m26@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143183


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

chap. disc. of HBP4 (Horace Slughorn) 

Date: Monday, November 21, 2005 
Time: All Day

Since the dissection of HBP ch. 4 (Horace Slughorn) is now in
the
offing, we would like to suggest that everyone who is interested
in participating meaningfully *reread* this chapter and refresh
your memory of canon. Look for the post from Alla in the week of 
November 21st! In the meantime, you are welcome
to continue the discussion of
HBP1
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141797)
HBP2
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142027)
HBP3
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142565).

To view the discussion schedule and to see which chapters still
need a discussion leader, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database
and click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. If
you'd like to take one of the available chapters, please let
the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com

Thanks and enjoy! 

 





From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Fri Nov 18 09:30:29 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:30:29 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <dljcgd+t2r9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlk6vl+c8am@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143184

 > Alla:
> 
> Well, we do know that none of the teachers tried to save Ginny, no? 
> Instead they sent Lockhart there. I mean, sure they seem to want to 
> show the world how incompetent Lockhart is, but woudn't the truly 
> capable adult I don't know ask Lockhart where Chamber is and try to 
> go there themselves?,

Hickengruendler:

But I really think they were just sarcastic here. They obviously knew 
that Lockhart did not know, where the Chamber was, and just wanted to 
get rid of him. Asking Lockhart were the Chamber was would not helped 
them at all, since Lockhart didn't know. And I have to admit, I am 
surprised that you are taking the scene that literally. IMO, taking the 
teachers by their words here is like taking them by their words, when 
they said Umbridge, that they weren't sure if they had the authority to 
get rid of the dragons the twins let loose. They were just sarcastic, 
because they already had enough problems and wanted at least have their 
peace from Lockhart.

Hickengruendler
 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 11:44:52 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:44:52 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust
In-Reply-To: <001f01c5ebcf$abbaf080$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dlkerk+afgp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143185

 
> Sherry:
> 
> There are reasons that teenagers aren't allowed to work at jobs 
using heavy
> equipment or other dangerous jobs.  There's a reason they aren't 
allowed to
> drive till a certain age.  It's a proven fact that kids don't have 
the
> judgment that adults do.  i don't believe for a minute that there 
was any
> thought of the villagers, good or bad.  They were doing something 
fun, and
> something that was helping their friend.  few kids would have 
thought out
> the consequences.  Too many people expect the marauders to have 
been
> thinking with the maturity of adults, and that just isn't the way 
it is.
> they were just kids, reckless, brave and caring for their friend, 
but also
> irresponsible and unthinking.  Well, so was I around their age, 
and so were
> many reserved responsible adults I know today.  It doesn't seem 
really fair
> to judge them with adult sensibilities.
> 
> Sherry

I'm not so sure about that. They were not children in their fifth 
year. They were about 15-16. And they continued to 
behave "irresponsibly" till they were in their seventh year, that 
is, even after they became legally adults. I can recognize post-
Azkaban Sirius and adult Lupin and Pettigrew in their respective 
teen-age selves very easily. And frankly it doesn't look like 
their "values" have changed perceptively. I don't know about James, 
of course, we haven't seen him as an adult. 

a_svirn









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 18 12:23:40 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:23:40 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dljq27+nuk3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlkh4c+sh0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143186

Carol: 
> Since her time frame is confused (she seems to think young Snape was
> applying for a job almost two years before he actually received the
> Potions position), her entire memory may be confused. All I'm saying
> is that the two stories don't fit together to make a coherent whole.
> Or if they do, I don't see it.


Potioncat:
Only looking at this one small part of Trelawney's comments, that is, 
that Snape was job hunting:

It's likely that later she reflected on that day and assumed Snape 
must 
have been applying for a job. It's now many, many years later and 
things get blurred for sharper minded individuals than Trelawney. I 
think this idea was suggested upthread, but this is a "me too" 
because I think it's reasonable.

It's also possible that LV sent Snape to apply for the yearly DADA 
opening and DD turned him down a couple of times before hiring him. 
It's possbile that that year's DADA teacher was already out of the 
picture, or rumors were out that he/she would be leaving. 

With Snape visiting DD a couple of time to apply for openings, DD may 
have planted ideas in Snape's head, something like he did with Draco 
on the Tower. So that by the summer when Harry is one year old, Snape 
comes to DD with the news of LV's plan and Snape's remorse over it. 
Snape turns, is hired and in October the Potters are attacked. 
Although, as I look at this, many of us believe Snape had turned 
quite a bit (months? a year?) before that point. 

It was also suggested, that Snape was already working for DD when he 
heard the Prophecy and that bit of the prophecy was agreed upon 
information to take to LV. As Carol asked, how would DD know to have 
Snape listen at the door? But Snape and DD didn't have to plan for 
him to hear anything. He could have been listening for LV with DD's 
knowledge. The other complication is that it also makes DD somewhat 
responsible for James's and Lily's deaths. But I think this may be 
very well what happened. I'm not 100% sure, mind you. Even if he took 
the information to LV with DD's blessings, he could still feel 
remorse about the outcome.












From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 12:43:55 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:43:55 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse/Lockhart's incompetence
In-Reply-To: <dlk6vl+c8am@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlkiab+h8l7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143187

> Hickengruendler:
> 
> But I really think they were just sarcastic here. They obviously 
knew 
> that Lockhart did not know, where the Chamber was, and just wanted 
to 
> get rid of him. Asking Lockhart were the Chamber was would not 
helped 
> them at all, since Lockhart didn't know. <SNIP>They were just 
sarcastic, 
> because they already had enough problems and wanted at least have 
their 
> peace from Lockhart.
> 


Alla:

Well, I do agree with you -  they were sarcastic and definitely 
wanted to get rid of Lockhart as I said in my previous post. BUT I 
submit that we cannot  be sure what teachers knew about Lockhart and 
what they did not. Now, sure they saw his striking incompetence in 
some areas, but he admits at th end to memory charming many people 
and passing on their achievements as his own, so I think it is 
reasonable to speculate that teachers may think that something of 
what he wrote in his books was true, no?

After all Dumbledore gave him  the job, right and we all know how 
much all other adults trust Albus? Not necessarily that everybody 
knew that he was the only candidate for the job, IMO.

My point is I don't think  they knew with certainty that Lockhart 
has no clue where Entrance to the Chamber was. JMO of course.

Regardless, though my main point was that nobody else was doing 
anything and that brings me back to my main point.

The story which JKR writes needs children to be the saviours of the 
day often enough, NOT adults. And if adults engaged in search of 
Chambers, it would have been quite a boring story.
Granted often JKR justifies Harry and Co saving the day when nobody 
else can quite plausibly,  and CoS was one of those situations, but 
it does not change the fact to my mind, that we do have a bunch of 
quite incompetent adults in Hogwarts. :-)

IMO only,

Alla






From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Fri Nov 18 12:58:17 2005
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:58:17 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
Message-ID: <dlkj59+h9b4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143188


Ceridwen, speculating with Carol on Trelawney and her talents, muses:

<I know Dumbledore didn't have much faith in the discipline, but there 
is an O.W.L. in it, so he may have had no choice but to get a teacher 
for it. I wonder sometimes if this is when they first came up with the 
idea of an O.W.L. for it, so Dumbledore absolutely needed to find a 
teacher for it, or if the O.W.L. came once he had a teacher?>

Deborah now:

It's always seemed to me that Divination would be a wonderfully useful
discipline for cross-over witches and wizards - the ones who join
Muggle society without becoming accountants. They could use their
genuine skills to make an honest living ... well, semi-honest anyway;
no worse than the usual fortune-telling fakes and frauds that infest
Muggledom and at least potentially better. And if it opened up career
opportunities, it would be worthy of its status as a school subject.
Dumbledore seems to have retained it more to make Hogwarts a safe
haven for Trelawney than for its utility value, but in his capacity as
Idealistic Icon of Honour he would have to disapprove of parasitical
careers.

However, it's always the case that the availability of teachers
guarantees the subject. If Hogwarts can't hire a Divination professor,
Hogwarts students won't learn Divination and therefore won't be able
to become Divination professors in their turn. Where I live, although
Accounting and Computer Studies are examination subjects, many schools
are unable to offer them because of a shortage of staff (who are
making their millions in the marketplace). If there were none at all,
there would be no point in setting NEWT type exams. And when Computer
Studies first became a possibility, there was pressure from society to
offer it as a school subject, so teachers were sent off for training
if they so chose, and then the syllabus was drawn up and exams set.
Ancient Greek as a school subject is probably a good Muggle example of
the opposite. When demand withered on the bough, so did supply. And
being a wizarding/witching teacher in the UK means that career
opportunities are not superabundant, unless one goes off to the
(former) colonies and teaches in New Zealand or Bangla Desh.

It's also always seemed to me that making Hogwarts the only British
wizarding school is an unnecessary complication. Make it the best, by
all means - the Eton plus Cheltenham Ladies College of them - but if
there were a few others dotted about, in Giggleswick or Clacton, then
at least the sports teams would have competition. Ah well, so much for
Eton vs Harrow on brooms; so much also for long queues of better
qualified Divination professors, eager to take over from the present
feeble incumbent and able to prove their worth by showing their
students' brilliant OWL and NEWT results.

Deborah, not expecting JKR to ever clarify this topic!






From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Fri Nov 18 12:56:14 2005
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:56:14 -0000
Subject: Why is Harry considered half-blood?
Message-ID: <dlkj1e+n4md@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143189

Hi all,

I am a newcomer here.... been searching in the wrong places I think, to 
discuss HP!! Should have joined up here long back....

Anyways, I do not know if this point has been discussed before (if so, 
would somebody direct me to those posts?) -- but I have been wondering 
for a very long time as to why HP is said to be half-blood!!! He is not 
a half-blood ... just because his mom is a muggle-born, does not make him half-blood.... 
both HIS parents are magic .. so he is a pure blood! 
Whereas LV's father was a muggle, so LV is half-blood!! no?

bye for now, 
scam.












From BrwNeil at aol.com  Fri Nov 18 13:53:31 2005
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:53:31 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why is Harry considered half-blood?
Message-ID: <ba.7ddbeba1.30af36db@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143190

 
 
In a message dated 11/18/2005 8:43:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
brahadambal at indiatimes.com writes:

Hi  all,

I am a newcomer here.... been searching in the wrong places I  think, to 
discuss HP!! Should have joined up here long  back....

Anyways, I do not know if this point has been discussed before  (if so, 
would somebody direct me to those posts?) -- but I have been  wondering 
for a very long time as to why HP is said to be half-blood!!! He  is not 
a half-blood ... just because his mom is a muggle-born, does not  make him 
half-blood.... 
both HIS parents are magic .. so he is a pure  blood! 
Whereas LV's father was a muggle, so LV is half-blood!!  no?

bye for now, 
scam.

The problem is that there should be a third term for  describing lineage and 
there just isn't.  To be a pure blood, no  one in the blood line can be of 
Muggle heritage.  Once anyone has married  a Muggle, it is impossible to be pure 
blood again.  The term half  blood doesn't properly apply especially when the 
muggle could be generations  back, but that is what any one not 100% wizard 
blood is refered to as  being.  

 
Neil
The  Nefarious Court Jester of the Royal Family of Cliffies

Read and discuss  Hogwarts Exposed
and its sequels at _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HogwartsExposed/_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HogwartsExposed/) 
Stories also available at _http://www.schnoogle.com/_ 
(http://www.schnoogle.com/)  author  Neil, _http://portkey.org/_ (http://portkey.org/)  author Neil, 
and  _http://www.adultfanfiction.net/_ (http://www.portkey.org/)  author  Neil

Chapter twenty of Hogwarts OverExposed - Salazar's Return, has been posted. 
Look for chapter twenty-one on December 19, 2005. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 13:56:36 2005
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:56:36 -0000
Subject: FILK:  Does He Love Me?
Message-ID: <dlkmik+940q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143191

My 75th filk, and my first one with a Midi:

http://www.goldengreece.com/midi2.htm

"Does He Love Me?" to the tune of "Does He Love You?" by Reba 
McEntire with Linda Davis.

Dedicated to all the other inbred homely chicks out there who dream 
of finding a man who loves them.

Not that I condone Merope's actions, but I do understand her.  DD's 
best guess was that she did eventually quit giving Tom the love 
potion.  She must have hoped that he would come around to loving her 
for the real her.  That must have been a leap of faith on her part, 
and one not taken lightly.  

The original song is a duet between mistress and wife, wondering who 
their man loves more.  I have recreated this effect by having Merope 
singing a duet with her reflection in the mirror.  The reflection is 
what Tom sees.  


MEROPE:
He's had the potion
For a while now.
When he drinks it
He wears a smile now.
As long as he's right here with me
In my arms is where he wants to be.

MIRROR:
But I'm the one he 
Made his vow to.
I'm the one he
Gave his name to.
He'll never see your face
'Til his mind is put to right.
You have his body, his baby, but somehow, 
It's just not right.

CHORUS:
MEROPE:
But does he love me?

MIRROR:
Does he love you?

MEROPE:
For the real me?

MIRROR:
For the real you?

MEROPE:
Is he seeing you?

MIRROR:
Is he seeing you?

BOTH:
When he looks at me?

MEROPE:
Is this all real or...

MIRROR:
Is this real or...

BOTH:
Just a fantasy?

MEROPE:
Does he love me?

MIRROR:
Does he love you?

BOTH:
Or what he sees in me?

(end chorus)

MIRROR:
But when he sees me,
He sees such beauty.
Oh, how he wants me-
What he believes is me.

MEROPE:
And when I'm in his arms,
He thinks of no one else.
Oh, he believes in me,
But do I believe in myself?

Repeat Chorus

MEROPE:
I should not use this potion.

MIRROR:
He'll surely go insane.

MEROPE:
Cause I have everything to lose.

MIRROR:
But what, what could you really gain?

repeat chorus


Ginger, who feels sorry for Merope, despite that she was clearly in 
the wrong.  






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 18 14:15:51 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:15:51 -0000
Subject: Why is Harry considered half-blood?
In-Reply-To: <dlkj1e+n4md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlknmn+qglg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143192

 "scamjunk22" wrote:
>  but I have been wondering for a very long time as to why HP is said 
>to be half-blood!!! 


Potioncat:

Welcome!

To a certain extent, the answer is "just because."
One explanation is that Harry has 2 Muggle grandparents and two Magic 
Grandparents.

JKR apparantly decided to keep the distinctions to a minimum, rather 
than bogging down in differing degrees of Magic-ness. She does discuss 
it on her site, though.







From bee224 at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 18 13:59:01 2005
From: bee224 at hotmail.com (Bonnie)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:59:01 -0000
Subject: Question About Remus
Message-ID: <dlkmn5+b798@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143193

Hi I am new to the group so I do not know if you have covered this or 
not. If you have I am sorry.  My question is, in PoA when Remus turned 
into a werewolf and Sirus turned into the dog, how come that did not 
calm Remus down? If they would go out all the time at night shouldn't 
the presence of Sirus made Remus stop? I know this might seem like a 
dumb question but I really would like to know.

Bonnie








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Fri Nov 18 14:43:56 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:43:56 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dlk12k+8829@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlkpbc+6uhb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143194


> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Someone already gave the prefect answer to this question. I don't
> think we have two different version of the story, we have the same
> story from two different prespectives. 
> 
> As Ceridwen points out in post# 143174, Aberforth encounters Snape
> outside the door listening. As soon as Aberforth arrives, Snape 
stops
> listening. Aberforth asks him what he's doing, Snape makes lame
> excuses, the discussion heats up, and all the while, Trelawny is 
still
> inside giving the Prophecy. When Snape's lame excuses prove
> ineffective and Snape tries to make a break for it, they struggle 
and
> Aberforth collars him and takes him in to see Dumbledore. By this
> time, the Prophecy is over, it's really not that long, and Trelawny 
is
> coming around.
> 
> That seems a prefectly reasonable and consistent timeline to me.
> Naturally, Aberforth would make /some/ inquiries before bursting in 
on
> Dumbledore, and that would take time. And the Prophecy only takes
> about 30 seconds to read out loud, so we are not talking about a 
huge
> block of time here.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

The alternative is that DD sensed that someone was listening at the 
door, and placed some sort of imperturbable charm upon it (rather 
like Molly Weasley at Grimmauld Place). There would have been a 
general atmosphere of distrust at the time, due to Voldemort's rise 
to power. Add that to the omnipotent nature of DD, and you will 
probably find that he knew perfectly well that Snape the Death Eater 
was lurking around. Perhaps he then summoned Aberforth by some means 
to come and check this out. By the time Aberforth has found Snape, 
Trelawney has finished the prophecy.

Brothergib







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 18 15:04:57 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:04:57 -0000
Subject: Question About Remus
In-Reply-To: <dlkmn5+b798@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlkqip+4jo9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143195

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bonnie" <bee224 at h...> wrote:
> Hi I am new to the group so I do not know if you have covered this
> or not. If you have I am sorry.  My question is, in PoA when Remus
> turned into a werewolf and Sirus turned into the dog, how come that
> did not calm Remus down? If they would go out all the time at night
> shouldn't the presence of Sirus made Remus stop? I know this might
> seem like a dumb question but I really would like to know.

Jen: Welcome, Bonnie! Actually, I don't remember hearing an answer for 
this one before. Making a guess, maybe it was because the werewolf and 
Padfoot had been separated for so many years? Thinking about pack 
behavior, Werewolf!Lupin would have recognized Padfoot by smell just 
as a human would recognize an old buddy by sight, but they still have 
to go through their ritual of pack behavior & decide who's alpha 
animal. I'm sure it's argued somewhere humans do the same thing 
mentally when meeting up with an old friend after many years--sorting 
where a person fits into your current pack on a cognitive level.

I do think the story indicates that when the Marauders changed into 
animals they were different from their human selves, certainly more 
instinctual and less rational.

Jen, who recently finished a dog training/psychology class and is 
interested in pack behavior but not an expert.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 18 15:43:28 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:43:28 -0000
Subject: Dreams and Turbans
Message-ID: <dlksr0+h976@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143196

I recently took a trip by plane. Sitting in an airline terminal, 
waiting for a delayed flight provides my best HP reading time! I've 
now finished my second read of HBP---I know, I'm way behind the rest 
of you! These sections stood out as I read them. As you'll see, they 
aren't so close together, but being able to read at a comfortable 
pace, with no interruptions, they seemed to be all one section.

HBP chapter 19 p 417

Harry was knocked out of a Quidditch game by McLaggan and wakes up in 
the Hospital Wing:

"Harry's head felt strangely heavy; he raised a hand and felt a stiff 
turban of bandages."

"Harry lay there, staring up at the patch of light on the ceiling, 
his recently mended skull not hurting, precisely, but feeling 
slightly tender underneath all the bandaging."

He then summons Dobby and Kreacher and directs them to watch Draco. 

Then in chp21, p 436 a week later:
The chapter starts with the Trio working on DADA homework, discussing 
the Prince, and wondering how to get Slughorn's memory. Dobby and 
Kreacher appear without warning to give their report about Malfoy. 

"Harry's mind worked feverishly and his dreams when he finally fell 
asleep, were broken and disturbed by images of Malfoy, who turned 
into Slughorn who turned into Snape. 
"

This is 20 pages apart in two different chapters, and a week has gone 
by, but compare it to the dream Harry had his first night at 
Hogwarts. 



SS/PS chapter 7
"Perhaps Harry had eaten a bit too much, because he had a very 
strange dream.  He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which 
kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at 
once, because it was his destiny.  Harry told the turban he didn't 
want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull 
it off but it tightened painfully--and there was Malfoy, laughing at 
him as struggled with it--then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed 
teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold--there was a burst 
of green light and Harry woke, sweating and shaking."


Does anyone else see a connection? As much as we've discussed the 
SS/PS dream we never came to a conclusion. Now we have another turban 
dream
well, sort of. So in one Malfoy turns into Snape who seems to 
turn into LV. In the next, Malfoy turns into Slughorn who turns into 
Snape. Any ideas?







From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 18 15:47:58 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:47:58 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
Message-ID: <dlkt3e+sndr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143197

Carol:
> I'd be interested in hearing how various people reconcile the two
> versions, regardless of what flavor Snape they prefer. (Grape!
Snape,
> anyone? ;-) )


>Ceridwen:
>I thought about it, and came up with several different ideas. I
>think the one that most closely fits both Dumbledore's and
>Trelawney's recollections of events would be that Snape was outside
>the door when Trelawney began to give her prophecy, and was caught 
by
>Aberforth, and the ensuing argument made it impossible for Snape to
>hear the rest. Dumbledore heard the commotion; Trelawney didn't
>because she was in a trance..<snip>

Orna: 
I agree with this scenario, but would just like to add, that at this 
precise moment Trelawney woke up, for a moment, being startled 
because of the commotion. DD wanting to make the interruption as 
short as possible, hoping that Trelawney will be able to go on, 
throws Snape out immediately, and Trelawney resumes her trance and 
the  prophecy. That explains also Trelawney remembering the door 
bursting open, but actually not what happened thereafter. She heard 
Snape saying something, and that's when her story ends. Being 
aroused from a trance, she would be more likely to register 
consciously what she saw, than being able to decipher, what was 
being said. She continues and says,  that after "that" DD seemed 
more disposed to give her a job. This seems to hint there is a time 
leap in there, in which I think, she may have continued the 
prophecy.  

 >Ceridwen:
>But that doesn't explain the Pop-Up!Trelawney in the Pensieve.
<snip>
>So, the conclusion I came to is that Dumbledore didn't want Harry to
>see anything but Trelawney giving the prophecy. He didn't want Harry
>to see the room, the scene outside the windows (snow? dead of
>night?), he didn't want him to see *anything else*.

>I can get at least two reasons for that. There are probably more.
>One: Dumbledore wants Harry to focus on the prophecy to the 
exclusion
>of all else, so he 'spotlights' it; Two: Dumbledore doesn't want
>Harry to see something in the room for whatever reason.
>I'm tending toward number two. 

Orna:
I would like to offer a possibility ? I agree with the suggestion, 
that the pop-up!memory, is a way of having a very focused memory. 
But I think it might be focused not only in terms of time ("short 
take") , or space (you can see only a part of the room), but also in 
terms of levels of consciousness ? so to say. 

What I'm suggesting is that what happened in the original event, was 
what was suggested above-  you half of it, with my additions. Her 
being awake might have taken just a few seconds, and would account 
for her remembering it this way, "there was a commotion outside the 
door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman 
standing with Snape
". 

DD's memory, shows just the trance part of the prophecy, and 
Trelawney, not remembering her prophecies in a waken state, 
remembers just the periods, when she is awake, skipping over the 
places when she is in a trance, leaving just some traces, of there 
being something more (like the suddenness of the opening door, and 
her inability to remember anything which has been said then). 

Just a possibility
Orna









From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Nov 18 16:06:09 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:06:09 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why is Harry considered half-blood?
In-Reply-To: <dlknmn+qglg@eGroups.com>
References: <dlknmn+qglg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437DFBF1.70108@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143198

potioncat wrote:
> JKR apparantly decided to keep the distinctions to a minimum, rather 
> than bogging down in differing degrees of Magic-ness. She does discuss 
> it on her site, though.

Bart:
Agreed. One thing we must remember is that, although the HP novels have 
a large adult readership (hence this group, for example), they are 
written for children. As a result, JKR often uses shorthand references 
which kids can get quickly; hence no "quadroon", "octaroon" or other 
stuff like that, although, from what I've gathered from her comments, 
that is the image that she intends to invoke.
		
	Bart






From chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 16:26:19 2005
From: chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com (chewbacca98407)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:26:19 -0000
Subject: Question About Remus
In-Reply-To: <dlkqip+4jo9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlkvbb+cbt3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143199

Bonnie wrote:
> > My question is, in PoA when Remus turned into a werewolf and 
> > Sirus turned into the dog, how come that did not calm Remus down? 

Jen wrote:
> Making a guess, maybe it was because the werewolf and Padfoot had 
> been separated for so many years? Thinking about pack behavior, 
> Werewolf!Lupin would have recognized Padfoot by smell just as a 
> human would recognize an old buddy by sight, but they still 
> have to go through their ritual of pack behavior & decide who's 
> alpha animal. I'm sure it's argued somewhere humans do the same 
> thing mentally when meeting up with an old friend after many years


chewbacca suggests: 
There was quite a bit of turmoil going on at this point in the climax.  Peter had just been identified as a traitor, Snape was knocked out, and Ron had a broken leg.  I am not an animal expert (excepting my two cats) but my take on animal instinct seems to point to the fact that preditory animals, such as dogs, will always try and attack weak, sick, old, or otherwise injured "prey" before they will attack more physically able "prey."  We know that he was chained to said injured party as they exited the willow heading to the castle with Snape.  This could be what kept Lupin from "calming" down in the presence of Padfoot.  I also agree with the above comments from Jen regarding pack behavior, and think it is an extremely interesting observation.

from chewbacca, new poster, long-time fan.





From feenyjam at msu.edu  Fri Nov 18 18:01:07 2005
From: feenyjam at msu.edu (greenfirespike)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:01:07 -0000
Subject: Sirius' funeral...
Message-ID: <dll4t3+olc9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143200



I was wondering why we never have any sort or funeral or formal goodbye 
for Sirius.  I am not suggesting anything close to DD's service, but at 
least a small gathering at 12 Grimmauld Place.  I am a bit surprised 
that nothing ever really happens; Harry simply goes back home for the 
summer.   

Has this been discussed before on the list?  If so, could you please 
point me in the right direction.


Have a very HP day!!!

Greenfirespike







From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Fri Nov 18 17:45:05 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:45:05 -0000
Subject: Why is Harry considered half-blood?
In-Reply-To: <437DFBF1.70108@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dll3v1+ciuc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143201

potioncat wrote:
> > JKR apparantly decided to keep the distinctions to a minimum, 
> > rather than bogging down in differing degrees of Magic-ness. She 
> > does discuss it on her site, though.
 
Bart:
> Agreed. One thing we must remember is that, although the HP novels 
> have a large adult readership (hence this group, for example), they 
> are written for children. As a result, JKR often uses shorthand 
> references which kids can get quickly; hence no "quadroon", 
> "octaroon" or other stuff like that, although, from what I've 
> gathered from her comments, that is the image that she intends to 
> invoke.


Actually, the point seems to be that the purebloods are separating 
themselves from the rest of society on account of their purity of 
blood. There's one word for 'people with Muggle parents' and another 
for 'people with (recent-ish) Muggle ancestors', and a third for 'no 
Muggle ancestry' (that they care to admit, beyond the too-recent-to-
ignore). No further distinguishing labels needed.

MercuryBlue









From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 18 18:37:18 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:37:18 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore
Message-ID: <dll70u+ugrl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143202


>MercuryBlue:
>But if the Sorting Hat became a Horcrux in Riddle's sixth or seventh
>year, that rather explains that, doesn't it? That soul fragment
>probably skewed the Hat's definition of 'ambition'. That would land
>more students willing to model themselves on Riddle to gain power
>into Slytherin, rather than the other Houses <snip>
>So your portrait of the average Slytherin now
>looks suspiciously like your portrait of the average professional
>criminal or playground bully. Not, as in the pre-Riddle era, the
>average politician.
>Think about that.

Orna:
Have thought about it, and although, I still don't like such an 
influential object being a horcrux, it does make sense. I often 
asked myself, how come, when Slytherin talent has to do with 
ambition, that we never see any Slytherin, being just that  - 
ambitious, and not necessarily evil. According to your theory, the 
sorting goes more along with their attraction towards the dark 
power. 

But if it's like this, how can the sorting hat function like this ? 
calling for unison. And another thing- that would mean, Voldermort 
has placed his horcrux in an object which can think for himself. 
And there is something else:

>MercuryBlue
>All Riddle would have needed was thirty seconds
>alone in the Headmaster's office.

Orna:
Well, we actually don't know how the encasing spell looks/sounds 
like. I'm not saying, it couldn't be 30 seconds, I'm just curious. I 
mean, don't you have to be near the object where you want to encase 
the horcrux, while you are doing the killing? I can't think the 
fragmented piece of soul, is just floating around, waiting to be 
encased, or incased in an intermediate object. I think the 
encasement has to be done at the time of the killing, IMO. 

Hmm, I see I'm getting more and more morbid, and involved in dark 
magic


Orna









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 18:58:58 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:58:58 -0000
Subject: Question About Remus
In-Reply-To: <dlkmn5+b798@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dll89i+828h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143203

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bonnie" <bee224 at h...> wrote:
>
> Hi I am new to the group so I do not know if you have covered 
> this or not. If you have I am sorry.  My question is, in PoA 
> when Remus turned into a werewolf and Sirus turned into the dog,
> how come that did not calm Remus down? If they would go out all
> the time at night shouldn't the presence of Sirus made Remus 
> stop? I know this might seem like a dumb question but I really 
> would like to know. 
> Bonnie
>

bboyminn:

I don't think that it is just the presents of Padfoot and Prongs that
calmed werwolf!Lupin, it was also the absents of humans. Werewolves
are only a danger to humans, in a sense, they have an uncontrollable
blood-lust for humans. When Lupin's human friends transform into
animals that blood-lust isn't there, or at least, is at a more
managable level.

In the scene in question, Lupin transforms in the mist of a crowd of
humans, and is very much a danger to them. However, Sirius drags Lupin
away from the humans, and when they are a sufficient distance away,
Lupin forgets his urges to attack and instead runs into the forest.

Also, note that the books not only said that Lupin was calmed by the
presents of his animal friends, but that his friends, James and
Sirius, transformed into animals that were large enough to control
Lupin if he should have a sudden urge of human blood-lust. That
implies that Lupin was still a danger to humans even when his animal
friends were near, but that they could forcably prevent him from
attacking anyone.

Hope that helps.

Steve/bboyminn






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 19:25:42 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:25:42 -0000
Subject: Why is Harry considered half-blood?
In-Reply-To: <dlkj1e+n4md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dll9rm+lj2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143204

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" <brahadambal at i...>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> ... -- but I have been wondering for a very long time as to why HP
> is said to be half-blood!!! He is not a half-blood ... just because 
> his mom is a muggle-born, does not make him half-blood....  both 
> HIS parents are magic .. so he is a pure blood! 
> Whereas LV's father was a muggle, so LV is half-blood!! no?
> 
> bye for now, 
> scam.

bboyminn:

You have to remember that 'half-blood' is in the eye of the beholder.
Technically Harry is a full-blood, but not a pureblood; though
admittedly that term is never actually used in the books.

Context plays a big part here. Purebloods, or those with a pureblood
mania, would consider Harry a half-blood because they want to
emphasize the IMpurity of Harry's blood. The only other person I know
of who has referred to Harry as a half-blood was Dumbledore, and that
was in the context of making a point about Harry's heritage as
compared to Neville's. 

So, what it gets down to is that there is a technically correct
application of the word 'half-blood'. Seamus, for example, has one
magic parent and one muggle parent, he is a true 'half-blood'. Others,
like the purebloods, use this term in a technically incorrect way to
emphasis that the person in question's blood is not pure. So while the
term has a technically correct definition, it is not always used in a
technically correct way.

The correct definitions are -

Muggle - not magical and no magical ancestors.

Half-Blood - person of mixed parentage.

Full-Blood - person of magical parents, but having direct-line muggle
ancestors

Pureblood - a person who is magical, and allegedly with no muggle
blood anywhere in their direct-line of ancestors.

Keep in mind that 'Pureblood' applies only to the direct line of
ancestors. If your uncle married a muggle, that might be a disgrace,
and it will certainly affect the blood of his children, it doesn't in
anyway affect your own blood. 

Hope that helps.

Steve/bboyminn







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 19:31:36 2005
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:31:36 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dlkh4c+sh0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlla6o+9fq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143205

Okay, here's my question about this overheard prophecy and it's probably an unfair question to ask, but...

If Snape only heard half of the prophecy and wasn't thrown out of the inn before the end of the prophecy, why doesn't Voldemort get himself a pensieve, extract the memory from Snape and go look for himself?  After all, Harry hears things in Snape's worst memory that Snape presumably didn't, such as the exchange revealing Lupin as a werewolf.


montavilla47







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 19:40:54 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:40:54 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? (Was: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <dll70u+ugrl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dllao6+ldjm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143206

Orna wrote:
> <snip> [A]lthough I still don't like such an influential object [the
Sorting Hat] being a horcrux, it does make sense. I often asked
myself, how come, when Slytherin talent has to do with ambition, that
we never see any Slytherin, being just that  - ambitious, and not
necessarily evil. According to your theory, the sorting goes more
along with their attraction towards the dark power. 
> 
> But if it's like this, how can the sorting hat function like this ?
 calling for unison. And another thing- that would mean, Voldermort
has placed his horcrux in an object which can think for himself. And
there is something else:
<snip MercuryBlue>
> Well, we actually don't know how the encasing spell looks/sounds
like. I'm not saying, it couldn't be 30 seconds, I'm just curious. I 
mean, don't you have to be near the object where you want to encase
the horcrux, while you are doing the killing? I can't think the
fragmented piece of soul, is just floating around, waiting to be
encased, or incased in an intermediate object. I think the encasement
has to be done at the time of the killing, IMO. <snip>

Carol responds:
I don't like the idea of the Sorting Hat as a Horcrux, either, in part
for the reasons that you stated: It can think for itself, and we don't
know how long the encasing spell takes. The Sorting Hat has been
calling for unity, not exactly the sort of thing an object
contaminated by Voldemort would do. It also regrets its own function,
sorting the students into houses ("quartering them every year"), and
JKR says that it has never made a mistake (so presumably we'll find
out why Percy and PP ended up in Gryffindor). It also presented the
Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, enabling him to defeat the Basilisk and
ultimately to destroy the Diary!Horcrux and Diary!Tom. And it should
be noted that Tom Riddle himself, a half-blood with enormous ambition
(as well as an apparently innate propensity to evil) ended up in
Slytherin before he could possibly have tampered with the Sorting Hat.

Another reason I don't think that Tom Riddle would have made the
Sorting Hat a Horcrux is Diary!Tom's attitude toward it. ("This is
what Dumbledore sends you? A songbird and an old hat?") Now granted,
sixteen-year-old Memory!Tom would not yet have known that he made any
Horcruxes, even perhaps the diary, which was originally created for
another purpose, but his contempt for the hat doesn't indicate that he
would have chosen it. He likes his Horcruxes to be valuable and not
subject to decay, objects made of silver or gold, not shabby old hats.
I can see him wanting the Sword of Gryffindor as a Horcrux if it were
available to him, but it doesn't seem to have belonged to Armando
Dippet, only to Dumbledore, and it doesn't seem to have appeared in
DD's office until Harry pulled it (like a rabbit!) out of the Sorting
Hat. (I'm not sure that it was hidden in the Sorting Hat all that
time. I think DD had it and hid it there for Harry's use during his
second year. No way to prove that, though.)

I agree with Orna that it's unlikely that the complex spell required
to create a Horcrux could be cast in thirty seconds. I'm guessing that
it requires an elaborate ritual incantation spoken aloud, something
the portraits would have heard and reported to the headmaster had he
attempted something so overtly evil while he was still at school.

I disagree, though, that the Horcrux has to be created immediately
after the murder. Tom Riddle was wearing the ring when he asked
Slughorn about Horcruxes, indicating that he had already murdered his
father and grandparents. He had also already "written" the diary that
preserved his sixteen-year-old self inside it; that was written near
the end of his fifth year. The murders occurred between his fifth and
sixth years. So at that time he had killed four people counting Myrtle
(I think she was the murder he used for the diary, and, yes, IMO,
using a Basilisk to kill someone counts as murder just as it would be
murder if he set a rattlesnake loose in a classroom and it bit someone
and that person died.) Or, if we don't count Myrtle, he had murdered
three people but did not yet know how to turn either the diary or the
ring into a Horcrux. That must have happened later, after he had
discovered the spell required to create a Horcrux, at the earliest
between his sixth and seventh years. (I think he must have visited
Grindelwald, who is in the books for a reason, before Grindelwald's
defeat.) At any rate, he used objects already in his possession and
murders already committed to create those first two Horcruxes. 

Tom's appearance has already begun to change by the time he visits
Hepzibah Smith and acquires two more future Horcruxes, the cup and the
locket, indicated that he has created at least one and probably two
Horcruxes by that time. Hepzibah's murder would have enabled him to
create another Horcrux from an object he stole from her--let's say the
cup because it was specifically associated with her and with her
Hufflepuff heritage. If he used Myrtle's murder for the Diary!Horcrux
and his father's for the Ring!Horcrux, he still had at least two
unused soul bits (from his grandparents) to use for the locket. If
Myrtle doesn't count and he used, say, his grandfather for the diary,
he still had his grandmother's murder available for the locket. (For
all we know, Tom in his early twenties may have already committed
other murders as well, but five is more than sufficient for four
Horcruxes.)

So, in essence, all that's required to create a Horcrux is a soul
that's been split by murder and knowledge of the incantation or spell
required to create one, as well as a powerful desire to connect your
immortal soul to earthly existence. The murder and the creation of the
Horcrux don't need to occur together, and the object doesn't need to
be present when the murder is committed. (According to Dumbledore, Tom
prefers to use significant murders and powerful magical objects
connected with his personal history, but neither is absolutely
essential. Certainly an object that won't deteriorate and can't think
for itself is vastly preferable to a ripped and dirty old Sorting Hat
with a mind of its own and thoughts that are in many ways the
antithesis of Tom's.)

Carol, who thinks the unidentified Horcrux is the tiara Harry placed
on top of the HBP's Potions book so he can find it again (Why mention
it otherwise?)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 20:42:48 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:42:48 -0000
Subject: Why is Harry considered half-blood?
In-Reply-To: <dll9rm+lj2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dllec8+gsvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143207

scamjunk22 wrote:
<snip> I have been wondering for a very long time as to why HP is said
to be half-blood!!! He is not a half-blood ... just because his mom is
a muggle-born, does not make him half-blood....  both IS parents are
magic .. so he is a pure blood! Whereas LV's father was a muggle, so
LV is half-blood!! no?

> 
> bboyminn responded:
> 
> You have to remember that 'half-blood' is in the eye of the
beholder. Technically Harry is a full-blood, but not a pureblood;
though admittedly that term is never actually used in the books.
> 
> Context plays a big part here. Purebloods, or those with a pureblood
mania, would consider Harry a half-blood because they want to
emphasize the IMpurity of Harry's blood. The only other person I know
of who has referred to Harry as a half-blood was Dumbledore, and that
was in the context of making a point about Harry's heritage as
compared to Neville's. 
<snip>
> 
> The correct definitions are -
> 
> Muggle - not magical and no magical ancestors.
> 
> Half-Blood - person of mixed parentage.
> 
> Full-Blood - person of magical parents, but having direct-line
muggle ancestors
> 
> Pureblood - a person who is magical, and allegedly with no muggle
> blood anywhere in their direct-line of ancestors. <snip>

Carol responds:
Although Steve's definitions make sense, the problem is that JKR (as
he concedes) never uses the term "full-blood." 

The reason that Harry is considered a half-blood by the WW (including
even DD, who clearly does not approve of the ideology behind the
classifications) is that Harry's mother has no wizarding blood. She
is, in the eyes of the Slytherins and anyone else who subscribes to
the pure-blood superiority ethic, nothing but a Muggle who is somehow
able to perform magic but is not one of *them*, not a true witch or
wizard but an outsider. ("The other kind," as Draco puts it in SS/PS;
"a girl of no wizard family," as Lucius Malfoy says of Hermione in
CoS). Lily is a "Mudblood" (in their view) because her "blood" is
Muggle blood; her parents are Muggles. The Muggle concept of genetics
has no place here. Neither does the ability of the Muggleborn parent
to perform magic. For someone like Draco Malfoy and his parents, who a
person is depends on his blood and his family. ("What's your surname?"
Draco asks Harry in SS/PS.) *Within* their circle, power and ability
matter. Malfoy is the leader; Crabbe and Goyle are the followers.
Outside their circle, they do not. A Half-blood like Snape or Harry
can gain admission to the circle if he wants it because he has Wizard
blood; a Muggleborn can't--and most likely wouldn't want to.

To return to why Harry is a Half-blood despite having two magical
parents: If Lily's father is a Muggle, a nonmagical person with no
known magical ancestors (MM), and her mother is also a Muggle (MM),
their child is a Muggle (MM) in terms of her "blood" heritage
regardless of her ability to perform magic. James, in contrast, is a
pureblood (WW) with wizarding blood on both sides and no known Muggle
ancestors. The child of a WW and an MM is, and has to be, a WM, a
half-blood, just as the child of a Muggle and a Witch or Wizard is a
WM. The Wizard blood dominates and the child is usually but not always
a Witch or Wizard.

I personally wonder is the chances of a half-blood (the child of a
pureblood and Muggle or Muggleborn) being a Squib really are greater
than the chances of two purebloods producing a Squib--or would be if
the number of purebloods weren't so limited, forcing a limited number
of families to marry each other. I'm pretty sure that fear of
producing Squibs, along with a general fear and loathing of Muggles,
produced the pureblood ideology in the first place. Otherwise, the
term "Mudblood" makes no sense. How could a Muggleborn's blood be
contaminated by the *absence* of a trait, the *absence* of magical
heritage? The purebloods must have feared that marrying such a person
would contaminate their bloodline, making it "impure" through the
introduction of nonmagical blood that might result in the production
of nonmagical children (Squibs) if they were foolish enough to marry a
Muggle or Muggleborn. (I'm not saying that they're right; I'm only
trying to account for the concept.)

At any rate, the WW is, as far as I can see, unacquainted with Muggle
concepts of genetics and operates more nearly along the lines of
European royalty, who until recently would not marry "commoners." If
you didn't have royal or at least "noble" blood, you weren't a fit
marriage partner no matter how rich or attractive or gifted you
happened to be. (The dangers of inbreeding among a limited gene pool
are obvious to *us.* I'm not so sure that they're obvious to the WW,
where the likes of the Gaunts keep to themselves.)

Carol, who is *not* arguing for pureblood supremacy, just trying to
explain the concept as it appears to be viewed by its advocates






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 18 22:35:11 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:35:11 -0000
Subject: Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse/Lockhart's incompetence
In-Reply-To: <dlkiab+h8l7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dllkuv+bhef@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143208

> >>Hickengruendler:
> > But I really think they were just sarcastic here. They obviously 
> > knew that Lockhart did not know, where the Chamber was, and just 
> > wanted to get rid of him. 
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> Well, I do agree with you -  they were sarcastic and definitely 
> wanted to get rid of Lockhart as I said in my previous post. BUT I 
> submit that we cannot  be sure what teachers knew about Lockhart   
> and what they did not. Now, sure they saw his striking            
> incompetence in some areas, but he admits at th end to memory      
> charming many people and passing on their achievements as his own, 
> so I think it is reasonable to speculate that teachers may think   
> that something of what he wrote in his books was true, no?

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, no. Not by the end of CoS.  Lockhart's hubris was such 
that he'd act the expert in front of *actual experts*.  He didn't 
brag on his horticulture skills in front of McGonagall, who might 
not know enough to call him on it.  He bragged in front of Prof. 
Sprout, who would know *immediately* that he was completely wrong.  
And his classroom disasters could have hardly been kept secret.  Not 
in the small community of Hogwarts.  

So I do think it's a bit past reason to think any teacher in the 
staff room thought Lockhart competent at anything besides curling 
his hair.  (You can speculate, of course, that there was any respect 
left for Lockhart.  But I think you've got an uphill battle on your 
hands <g>.)

> >>Alla: 
> After all Dumbledore gave him  the job, right and we all know how 
> much all other adults trust Albus? Not necessarily that everybody 
> knew that he was the only candidate for the job, IMO.

Betsy Hp:
But Hagrid knew it at the beginning of the year!  Hagrid!  The king 
of loose lips!  No, I'm quite sure the entire staff room knew 
Lockhart's appointment was one of desperation.  And anyone out of 
the loop was probably quite quickly filled in once Lockhart started 
offending everyone left right and center.  Especially after he 
started digging at Dumbledore.  I doubt McGonagall would have let 
that stand.

> >>Alla: 
> My point is I don't think  they knew with certainty that Lockhart 
> has no clue where Entrance to the Chamber was. JMO of course.

Betsy Hp:
I'd bet that pretty much everyone on staff would have sworn on the 
heads of their sainted mothers that Lockhart knew nothing about the 
Chamber or Slytherin's monster.  Especially after his "deer in the 
headlights" performance that Harry and Ron witnessed.

> >>Alla: 
> Regardless, though my main point was that nobody else was doing 
> anything and that brings me back to my main point.
> The story which JKR writes needs children to be the saviours of   
> the day often enough, NOT adults. And if adults engaged in search 
> of Chambers, it would have been quite a boring story.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
True to the extent that Harry needs to be the protagonist at the 
heart of the adventure.  But in CoS JKR gives Harry an edge 
(parseltongue) rather than making *all* the adults incompetent.  The 
adults were rendered helpless because they didn't know where the 
Chamber was.  Harry had the information because Tom Riddle wanted to 
kill him and because Harry spoke the language.  Not because he had 
some sort of special virtue of childhood all adults lack.

Actually, the very fact Harry and Ron *didn't* see through 
Lockhart's act and chose him as their adult backup showed a childish 
lack of judgement that nearly got them mind-wiped.  In this case, 
being children didn't help Ron and Harry (or Ginny for that matter) 
at all.  IMO, anyway.

Betsy Hp






From whiggrrl at erols.com  Sat Nov 19 00:33:16 2005
From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:33:16 -0500
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <1132353422.3237.68716.m28@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1132353422.3237.68716.m28@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <437E72CC.3040508@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143209

Orna:

>DD's memory, shows just the trance part of the prophecy, and 
>Trelawney, not remembering her prophecies in a waken state, 
>remembers just the periods, when she is awake, skipping over the 
>places when she is in a trance, leaving just some traces, of there 
>being something more (like the suddenness of the opening door, and 
>her inability to remember anything which has been said then). 


Whiggrrl,
delurking to discuss another possibility:

Is it possible that Trelawney was not making an authentic prophecy at 
the time of the interview, but instead was faking it, in hopes of 
impressing Dumbledore and getting a job?  Perhaps she figured that 
making a vague statement, favorable to Dumbledore's known sympathies, 
would convince him that Divination was worth teaching and she was worth 
hiring to teach it?  (If this is the case, I'm sure Dumbledore's and 
Voldemort's activities since the prophecy came out have more or less 
made it authentic.)  Perhaps she feels guilty at having faked her way 
into her job; this would explain her tendency to avoid meals in the 
Great Hall and what is clearly a serious drinking problem in /HBP/.

The detail "She continues and says, that after "that" DD seemed more disposed to give her a job" seems to me to support this line of thought.

Whiggrrl







From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 01:30:54 2005
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:30:54 -0000
Subject: Lockhart's incompetence
In-Reply-To: <dllkuv+bhef@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dllv8e+101vt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143210

> > >>Hickengruendler:
> > > But I really think they were just sarcastic here. They 
obviously 
> > > knew that Lockhart did not know, where the Chamber was, and 
just 
> > > wanted to get rid of him. 
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Alla:
> > Well, I do agree with you -  they were sarcastic and definitely 
> > wanted to get rid of Lockhart as I said in my previous post. BUT 
I 
> > submit that we cannot  be sure what teachers knew about 
Lockhart   
> > and what they did not. Now, sure they saw his striking            
> > incompetence in some areas, but he admits at th end to 
memory      
> > charming many people and passing on their achievements as his 
own, 
> > so I think it is reasonable to speculate that teachers may 
think   
> > that something of what he wrote in his books was true, no?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Honestly, no. Not by the end of CoS.  Lockhart's hubris was such 
> that he'd act the expert in front of *actual experts*.  He didn't 
> brag on his horticulture skills in front of McGonagall, who might 
> not know enough to call him on it.  He bragged in front of Prof. 
> Sprout, who would know *immediately* that he was completely wrong.  
(snip)
> So I do think it's a bit past reason to think any teacher in the 
> staff room thought Lockhart competent at anything besides curling 
> his hair.  (You can speculate, of course, that there was any 
respect 
> left for Lockhart.  But I think you've got an uphill battle on your 
> hands <g>.)

> > >>Alla: 
> > My point is I don't think  they knew with certainty that Lockhart 
> > has no clue where Entrance to the Chamber was. JMO of course.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'd bet that pretty much everyone on staff would have sworn on the 
> heads of their sainted mothers that Lockhart knew nothing about the 
> Chamber or Slytherin's monster.  Especially after his "deer in the 
> headlights" performance that Harry and Ron witnessed.

Ginger, who probably should have snipped more:

I'm going to throw in some text that I think shows that the teachers 
did have a pretty good idea that they were just getting Lockhart out 
of the way, rather than expecting him to solve anything.  All quotes 
are from ch. 16 of CoS, American paperback.

When Lockhart enters the staffroom, "the other teachers were looking 
at him with something remarkably like hatred.
"Snape stepped forward.  
"'Just the man,' he said.  'The very man.' (snip) 'Your moment has 
come.'
(snip)
"'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?'
"'-well, I-' sputtered Lockhart.
"'Yes, didn't you tell me you were sure you knew that was inside it?' 
piped up Professor Flitwick.
"'D-did I?  I don't recall-'
(snip)
Lockhart lookes around at his stony-faced colleagues.
"'I- I really never-you may have misunderstood'
(snip more dialogue and Lockhart leaves)
"'Right,' said Professor McGonagall, whose nostrils were 
flared, 'that's got *him* (emphasis JKR) out from under our feet."

End quotes.  

I snipped conversation that was more of the same, but it seems to me 
that Snape took the lead and the others followed.  I don't think that 
any of them had any hope save that he would leave the room and leave 
them in peace.  As a matter of conscience, I'd think that if they had 
any inkling that he would succeed, they would have offered some sort 
of backup.

It doesn't say it in the text, but I think it's implied well enough 
that we can pretty safely assume it, especially since Lockhart was 
doing some serious backpeddling throughout as the others pressed him 
further.

Back to Alla's original question about the adults in the series, I 
wonder what would have happened had Harry and Ron approached the 
other teachers.  For some reason, and none that I can pinpoint, my 
gut feeling is that they'd have had the best chance with Flitwick.

Ginger, who thinks it wouldn't have been as good of a story with any 
other adult in the chamber.






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 19 03:02:46 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:02:46 +0100
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
References: <1132353422.3237.68716.m28@yahoogroups.com> <437E72CC.3040508@erols.com>
Message-ID: <014e01c5ecb5$b8caeeb0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143211

j. lutz wrote:
> Is it possible that Trelawney was not making an authentic prophecy at
> the time of the interview, but instead was faking it, in hopes of
> impressing Dumbledore and getting a job?

Miles:
I don't think that this would be possible. To fool Dumbledore may be
possible in general, but as he is described as a skilled occlumens, he
should be able to recognize a real prophecy in a situation like this.
We do not know much about prophecies, but we can imagine that they require a
special state of mind, which could be identified by Dumbledore.
Trelawny is described as a witch not too talented - (why should she have to
*hide* her sherry bottles otherwise?). But since she has no remarkable
skills, she should fail to bluff Dumbledore with a fake prophecy.

Miles, who has to apologize for his poor English ;)






From greatraven at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 19 06:53:48 2005
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:53:48 -0000
Subject: Lockhart's incompetence
In-Reply-To: <dllv8e+101vt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlmi5s+6j8b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143212

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" <quigonginger at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> Ginger, who probably should have snipped more:
> 
> I'm going to throw in some text that I think shows that the teachers 
> did have a pretty good idea that they were just getting Lockhart out 
> of the way, rather than expecting him to solve anything.  All quotes 
> are from ch. 16 of CoS, American paperback.
> 
> When Lockhart enters the staffroom, "the other teachers were looking 
> at him with something remarkably like hatred.
> "Snape stepped forward.  
> "'Just the man,' he said.  'The very man.' (snip) 'Your moment has 
> come.'
> (snip)
> "'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?'
> "'-well, I-' sputtered Lockhart.
> "'Yes, didn't you tell me you were sure you knew that was inside it?' 
> piped up Professor Flitwick.
> "'D-did I?  I don't recall-'
> (snip)
> Lockhart lookes around at his stony-faced colleagues.
> "'I- I really never-you may have misunderstood'
> (snip more dialogue and Lockhart leaves)
> "'Right,' said Professor McGonagall, whose nostrils were 
> flared, 'that's got *him* (emphasis JKR) out from under our feet."
> 
> End quotes.  
> 
> I snipped conversation that was more of the same, but it seems to me 
> that Snape took the lead and the others followed.  I don't think that 
> any of them had any hope save that he would leave the room and leave 
> them in peace.  As a matter of conscience, I'd think that if they had 
> any inkling that he would succeed, they would have offered some sort 
> of backup.
> 
> It doesn't say it in the text, but I think it's implied well enough 
> that we can pretty safely assume it, especially since Lockhart was 
> doing some serious backpeddling throughout as the others pressed him 
> further.
> 
> Back to Alla's original question about the adults in the series, I 
> wonder what would have happened had Harry and Ron approached the 
> other teachers.  For some reason, and none that I can pinpoint, my 
> gut feeling is that they'd have had the best chance with Flitwick.
> 
> Ginger, who thinks it wouldn't have been as good of a story with any 
> other adult in the chamber.

Sue here,


Good point, Ginger. Anyone ever read Enid Blyton's mysteries as a child? Five kids and a 
dog ALWAYS solve the crime, while the adult, e.g. Mr Goon in the Five Findouters 
mysteries, looks like an idiot. It's not until the HP books start getting to be YA fiction that 
adults play more than basic supporting roles and even - in OOP - come to the rescue.

My guess is that Flitwick would probably have been kind to the kids if they'd spoken to 
him, but gently suggested that it was dangerous and they should stay out of it, IMO, 
anyway. He's certainly the one most likely to believe them, if anyone did.
>






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov 19 07:48:10 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:48:10 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dllv8e+101vt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlmlbq+1k05@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143213

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:

Ginger:
 
> I'm going to throw in some text that I think shows that the 
teachers 
> did have a pretty good idea that they were just getting Lockhart 
out 
> of the way, rather than expecting him to solve anything.  All 
quotes 
> are from ch. 16 of CoS, American paperback.
> 
> When Lockhart enters the staffroom, "the other teachers were 
looking 
> at him with something remarkably like hatred.
> "Snape stepped forward.  
> "'Just the man,' he said.  'The very man.' (snip) 'Your moment has 
> come.'
> (snip)
> "'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?'
> "'-well, I-' sputtered Lockhart.
> "'Yes, didn't you tell me you were sure you knew that was inside 
it?' 
> piped up Professor Flitwick.
> "'D-did I?  I don't recall-'
> (snip)
> Lockhart lookes around at his stony-faced colleagues.
> "'I- I really never-you may have misunderstood'
> (snip more dialogue and Lockhart leaves)
> "'Right,' said Professor McGonagall, whose nostrils were 
> flared, 'that's got *him* (emphasis JKR) out from under our feet."
> 
> End quotes.  
> 
> I snipped conversation that was more of the same, but it seems to 
me 
> that Snape took the lead and the others followed.  I don't think 
that 
> any of them had any hope save that he would leave the room and 
leave 
> them in peace.  As a matter of conscience, I'd think that if they 
had 
> any inkling that he would succeed, they would have offered some 
sort 
> of backup.
> 
> It doesn't say it in the text, but I think it's implied well enough 
> that we can pretty safely assume it, especially since Lockhart was 
> doing some serious backpeddling throughout as the others pressed 
him 
> further.

Geoff:
My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the staff 
actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him out of the 
way?

It seems fairly obvious that they didn't expect him to get very far 
but then immediately turned their minds to less urgent matters such 
as keeping the students secure in the dormitories and sending them 
home on the Hogwarts Express. There seemed to be no thought of trying 
to reach Ginny....







From ornawn at 013.net  Sat Nov 19 08:46:09 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:46:09 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? (Was: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore)
Message-ID: <dlmooh+3osu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143214

>Carol:

>I disagree, though, that the Horcrux has to be created immediately
>after the murder. Tom Riddle was wearing the ring when he asked
>Slughorn about Horcruxes, indicating that he had already murdered 
his
>father and grandparents. He had also already "written" the diary 
that
>preserved his sixteen-year-old self inside it; that was written near
>the end of his fifth year.

Orna:
I agree. That means that somehow during the encasement spell, the 
wizard has to intent a specific part-soul, connected with a specific 
murder to be encased. That begins to sound like some negative form 
of prayer, or twisted form of memorial to the deceased.


>Carol:
>He likes his Horcruxes to be valuable and not
>subject to decay, objects made of silver or gold, not shabby old 
hats.

>Carol, who thinks the unidentified Horcrux is the tiara Harry placed
>on top of the HBP's Potions book so he can find it again

Orna:
If there are enough jewels on it, he would prefer it to the battered 
old hat, as you said. Got any idea whose tiara it was, on whose 
wedding it was used? It wouldn't be his parents, as it was a runaway 
wedding, and I don't suppose Merope had anything more than the 
locket. Something to do with Ravenclaw?  Do we know anything more 
about Ravenclaw, besides brains?
And another thought ? the room of retirement is a good and bad 
hiding-place. Because, on one hand you can't find it, unless you 
know what you are looking for. But on the other hand, every time you 
want to hide something ? and as we see, lot's of people want to do 
it ? you just get there. Now, I see that if you get there for your 
own reasons, you wouldn't be likely to spot an object, which has 
been placed there by somebody else. Like Harry doesn't spot the 
cabinet, he sees there. But a tiara? It already sticks out. And 
waits to be remembered, when anybody will mention to Harry an 
occurrence where a beautiful tiara was part of it. So, I think that 
it might be it, but it could also be just a red herring. Or Eileen 
Prince's wedding memoir <g>.

Orna








From ornawn at 013.net  Sat Nov 19 10:05:56 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:05:56 -0000
Subject: Lockhart's incompetence
Message-ID: <dlmte4+67s1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143215

>Betsy Hp:
> Honestly, no. Not by the end of CoS. Lockhart's hubris was such
> that he'd act the expert in front of *actual experts*. He didn't
> brag on his horticulture skills in front of McGonagall, who might
> not know enough to call him on it. He bragged in front of Prof.
> Sprout, who would know *immediately* that he was completely wrong.

Orna:
I have been thinking about this. I don't understand how come, that 
Lockhart, whose expertise should be to be able to fool people, and 
convince them of his nonexistent talents, would brag about his 
skills, in front of the wrong persons. I mean, to get the results he 
got ? many books, with practical information about how to get rid of 
various creatures, he must have some capability to win the trust of 
the people involved, and that would include not bragging in front of 
people about things they are likely to spot. 
So, either, he was relying more and more on his memory charms, and 
so got reckless habits by now (like in the duel club with Snape, or 
when he told Harry and Ron that he was a fake. I mean, why tell them 
something, he will have to obliviate in a few seconds?). Or, perhaps 
that self-defying strategy has something to do with the DADA-curse? 
Perhaps the DADA curse let's every person get carried away with his 
secret, or some characteristic trait, thus being destructed by it, 
in a way? I mean ? it seems that no DADA-teacher looses his job, 
just by wishing to retire, or even by some unfortunate accident. It 
seems connected to some dark/secret/characteristic point in the 
person.

Lockhart with his arrogance, Lupin with his being a werewolf and 
forgetting it in crucial moments, Umbridge with 
 just anything from 
stupidity, arrogance, cruelty ? you name it. And Snape ? with his- 
being a double ?spy: I mean whatever Snape is; he can't function in 
book 7 as a double-spy in the sense, that both parties trust him, 
and think he belongs to them. Perhaps this curse-overconfidence made 
him take the UV, thinking he will be able to handle it in a way, 
which won't compromise his double position. I phrase it this way, 
because I tried not to glide into the Snape-discussion. But it seems 
the DADA curse works very strong ? I'm right back in it
. 

I can't fit as easily Moody and the late Quirrel, but I can try: 
Quirrel got killed because of his being secretly possessed by 
Voldermort. 

Remain Moody, whose "constant vigilance" and paranoid thoughts, were 
ridiculed and confirmed at the same time, not giving him the chance 
to teach at all. And, paradoxically, his paranoid habit of drinking 
from his hipflask enabled Crouch jr. to perform his Polyjuice-
cheating.


Orna








From sudeeel at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 04:29:46 2005
From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:29:46 -0000
Subject: "That awful boy" (Was: Comparing Lupin and Harry )
In-Reply-To: <dl07p2+rqrj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlm9nq+i9pt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143216

Carol wrote: 
> Maybe "that awful boy" is someone else, but why not go with the
> straightforward reading here? Doesn't anyone besides me think that
> Harry's right and the boy is James?

sudeeel: Sorry I'm so late picking up this thread. But I read an
editorial entitled "Aunt Petunia's Little Secret" at Mugglenet last
month that has pretty much convinced me that "that awful boy" was Sirius. 

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-jlw01.shtml

In it, JLW theorizes that family meetings between Potters and Evanses
regarding the coming nuptials of Lily and James included both Petunia
and Sirius (the Potters' "second son"), that Petunia fancied Sirius
and that he broke her heart. In the process of all this, Petunia
overheard a conversation where Sirius talked to Lily about Dementors.
The author notes other reasons from canon to think that Petunia knew
Sirius, as well. It's an interesting theory.

sudeeel








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov 19 11:25:58 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:25:58 -0000
Subject: Lockhart's incompetence
In-Reply-To: <dlmte4+67s1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dln246+8ehv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143217

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" <ornawn at 0...> wrote:
>
> >Betsy Hp:
> > Honestly, no. Not by the end of CoS. Lockhart's hubris was such
> > that he'd act the expert in front of *actual experts*. He didn't
> > brag on his horticulture skills in front of McGonagall, who might
> > not know enough to call him on it. He bragged in front of Prof.
> > Sprout, who would know *immediately* that he was completely wrong.
 
Orna:
> I have been thinking about this. I don't understand how come, that 
> Lockhart, whose expertise should be to be able to fool people, and 
> convince them of his nonexistent talents, would brag about his 
> skills, in front of the wrong persons. I mean, to get the results 
he 
> got ? many books, with practical information about how to get rid 
of 
> various creatures, he must have some capability to win the trust of 
> the people involved, and that would include not bragging in front 
of 
> people about things they are likely to spot. 

<snip>

> Or, perhaps 
> that self-defying strategy has something to do with the DADA-curse? 
> Perhaps the DADA curse let's every person get carried away with his 
> secret, or some characteristic trait, thus being destructed by it, 
> in a way? I mean ? it seems that no DADA-teacher looses his job, 
> just by wishing to retire, or even by some unfortunate accident. It 
> seems connected to some dark/secret/characteristic point in the 
> person.

<snip>

> Remain Moody, whose "constant vigilance" and paranoid thoughts, 
were 
> ridiculed and confirmed at the same time, not giving him the chance 
> to teach at all. And, paradoxically, his paranoid habit of drinking 
> from his hipflask enabled Crouch jr. to perform his Polyjuice-
> cheating.

Geoff:
But surely the "dark/secret/characteristic point" with Moody is 
precisely that he /isn't/ Moody; he is an impostor. Crouch Junior has 
learned about Moody's paranoid habits and is copying them to cover 
his real personality.








From ornawn at 013.net  Sat Nov 19 12:22:45 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:22:45 -0000
Subject: Lockhart's incompetence
Message-ID: <dln5el+ekm7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143218

>Geoff:
>But surely the "dark/secret/characteristic point" with Moody is
>precisely that he /isn't/ Moody; he is an impostor. Crouch Junior 
has
>learned about Moody's paranoid habits and is copying them to cover
>his real personality.

Orna:
That's true. I hadn't count Crouch as a DADA teacher. As far as 
Crouch Jr.'s is concerned,   his secret is revealed, again, because 
in the moment of his insane excitement to prove himself to 
Voldermort, he rushes away with Harry, thus arousing suspicion, and 
neglects to check his foe glass, while DD & company are approaching -
  thus ending his teaching career <g>

Perhaps I'm  too perfectionist here ? But Moody himself ? what made 
him "fail" the position, so to speak? He was the one appointed for 
the task, and "left" after a year? Or perhaps does the curse apply 
to the person, who teaches in fact, that way enacting the curse. 
Perhaps this is what you are meaning? (Not that being imperiused in 
a box, for a whole year, doesn't sound like a curse to me
). And 
while thinking about it, it is Moody's paranoid traits which made 
this possible ? I mean Arthur believing, he would suspect innocent 
dust-bins, his having a secret compartment in his own trunk, big 
enough to capture a man, and his eccentric behavior, making place 
for excusing weird incidents with Crouch as his anti-dark obsession. 


Orna, reaching her last post for today








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 19 12:49:24 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:49:24 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlmlbq+1k05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dln70k+r299@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143219

Alla wrote in 143187:
>snip... so I think it is 
> reasonable to speculate that teachers may think that something of 
> what he wrote in his books was true, no?
> 
> After all Dumbledore gave him  the job, right and we all know how 
> much all other adults trust Albus? Not necessarily that everybody 
> knew that he was the only candidate for the job, IMO.


Potioncat:
When we met Lockhart we had no real idea the position had been such a 
revolving door. After all, to us, there was a good reason for 
Quirrell to leave. We trusted DD, but his selection of Lockhart was 
the source of a great deal of discussion.

Looking at the DADA teachers with our HBP understanding of the 
situation, we know that there has been a new DADA teacher every year 
since about 1955. I'm basing that as being 10 years after Tom Riddle 
graduated. (using Lexicon's timeline.) 

Either the teachers "know" the position is jinxed, or they know 
there's a rumor it's jinxed, or at the very least they're used to 
seeing a parade of unusual characters in the position. Snape was 
taught by 7 different teachers and his own thoughts as a student 
about it would affect how he views the competence level of DADA 
teachers now. While they may not fully understand what is going on, 
I'm sure the teachers don't automatically think the DADA teacher is 
going to be well qualified. Nothing in the book makes me think the 
teachers were blind to Lockhart's lies.

> 
> Geoff:
> My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
> satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the 
staff 
> actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him out of 
the 
> way?
> 
> It seems fairly obvious that they didn't expect him to get very far 
> but then immediately turned their minds to less urgent matters such 
> as keeping the students secure in the dormitories and sending them 
> home on the Hogwarts Express. There seemed to be no thought of 
trying 
> to reach Ginny....

Potioncat:
You're right! It certainly seems that everyone gave up. If anyone was 
doing something, or planning to do something, we weren't told about 
it. 

But we were told that the castle had been searched many times and no 
one could find any evidence of the Chamber. So what could the 
teachers do, but get the other students to safety? 

Someone else pointed out that it was Harry's special tallent 
(Parseltongue) that allowed him to find the Chamber, not that the 
teachers themselves were incompetent.








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Sat Nov 19 14:41:16 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:41:16 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? (Was: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <dllao6+ldjm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlndic+m5a0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143220

> Carol:
> I don't like the idea of the Sorting Hat as a Horcrux, either, in part
> for the reasons that you stated: It can think for itself, and we don't
> know how long the encasing spell takes.

MercuryBlue:
What makes you think I like the idea? I have absolutely no clue as to
how Harry can eliminate that Horcrux without torching the Hat. We do
kinda need the Hat to survive intact. (Presuming Hogwarts reopens...)

Carol:
>The Sorting Hat has been
> calling for unity, not exactly the sort of thing an object
> contaminated by Voldemort would do. It also regrets its own function,
> sorting the students into houses ("quartering them every year"), and
> JKR says that it has never made a mistake (so presumably we'll find
> out why Percy and PP ended up in Gryffindor). It also presented the
> Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, enabling him to defeat the Basilisk and
> ultimately to destroy the Diary!Horcrux and Diary!Tom.

MercuryBlue:
Maybe the Hat doesn't know it's a Horcrux?

Carol:
>And it should
> be noted that Tom Riddle himself, a half-blood with enormous ambition
> (as well as an apparently innate propensity to evil) ended up in
> Slytherin before he could possibly have tampered with the Sorting Hat.

MercuryBlue:
True, BUT. Tom seems to have started out with the desire to beat
everyone else, preferably into the ground. That certainly fits my
definition of 'ambition'. Not well, but... And that's what the Sorting
Hat's definition of 'ambition' seems to have become.

Carol:
> Another reason I don't think that Tom Riddle would have made the
> Sorting Hat a Horcrux is Diary!Tom's attitude toward it. ("This is
> what Dumbledore sends you? A songbird and an old hat?") Now granted,
> sixteen-year-old Memory!Tom would not yet have known that he made any
> Horcruxes, even perhaps the diary, which was originally created for
> another purpose, but his contempt for the hat doesn't indicate that he
> would have chosen it. He likes his Horcruxes to be valuable and not
> subject to decay, objects made of silver or gold, not shabby old hats.

MercuryBlue:
Even money that the Hat was nearly that tattered while Godric was
wearing it. For thousand-year-old cloth, it's remarkably
well-preserved. The contempt he showed towards it in the Chamber is
for Harry, who's dumb enough to think that it might have some use
other than at the Sortings. It IS still a powerful magical artifact
with connections to all four Founders.

Carol:
>Now granted,
> sixteen-year-old Memory!Tom would not yet have known that he made any
> Horcruxes, even perhaps the diary, which was originally created for
> another purpose...

MercuryBlue:
Sixteen-year-old Memory!Tom IS a Horcrux. Or more accurately, he is
the soul fragment attached to the diary. How can he NOT have known
that he'd already made a Horcrux?

Carol:
> I agree with Orna that it's unlikely that the complex spell required
> to create a Horcrux could be cast in thirty seconds. I'm guessing that
> it requires an elaborate ritual incantation spoken aloud, something
> the portraits would have heard and reported to the headmaster had he
> attempted something so overtly evil while he was still at school.

MercuryBlue:
And just how many time-consuming spells have we seen? Complex spells,
yeah, plenty of them, but once they've got the hang of them we've
never seen anyone put more time into a spell than it takes to say the
word, have we? The thirty seconds is a guesstimate on my part, yes,
but I put 'thirty' rather than 'three' because it does seem like it
would take more time than the average spell.

Carol:
> I disagree, though, that the Horcrux has to be created immediately
> after the murder.

MercuryBlue:
Voldemort uses 'significant' murders to create the Horcruxes. How he
or anyone can tell one soul fragment from another (nobody can see the
soul, remember) is utterly beyond me. Ergo, to be sure the Horcrux is
created with the fragment torn loose by a particular murder, it MUST
be created right after the murder.

MercuryBlue









From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Sat Nov 19 15:03:49 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:03:49 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlmlbq+1k05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlnesl+73kf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143221

> Geoff:
> My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
> satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the staff 
> actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him out of the 
> way?
> 
> It seems fairly obvious that they didn't expect him to get very far 
> but then immediately turned their minds to less urgent matters such 
> as keeping the students secure in the dormitories and sending them 
> home on the Hogwarts Express. There seemed to be no thought of trying 
> to reach Ginny....

No, there wasn't. Because:
1) they didn't have a clue where she was
2) they had no idea where to start looking
2.5) they couldn't have gotten to her anyway (not that they knew, or
that it mattered)
3) odds were she was already dead and a search was therefore futile
4) odds were if they tried to find her and stumbled across the
monster, they'd die too
5) they had several hundred more kids at equal risk who had to be
gotten somewhere safer than Hogwarts ASAP

I doubt any of them liked the idea of doing nothing, but it was really
the only choice under the circumstances. Ginny's extraordinarily lucky
that Harry had they had a fair idea where to find the Chamber
entrance, has the ability to get in the damn place, didn't have to
worry about the other students, knew how to stay alive near the
monster, and wasn't so concerned about his own life that he'd not go
looking for his best friend's sister.

MercuryBlue









From Sherry at PebTech.net  Sat Nov 19 15:34:35 2005
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:34:35 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? (Was: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <dlndic+m5a0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlngmb+h630@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143222

Amontillada:

Cutting LARGE sections of quotes, because I'm responding only to a
couple of comments that brought ideas to my mind.

> MercuryBlue:
> [The Sorting Hat] IS still a powerful magical artifact
> with connections to all four Founders.

Amontillada:
In fact, it combines large scoops of magic from all four Founders. I
find that to be the main reason why it couldn't be a Horcrux: it's
hard to believe that even Voldemort could place a soul fragment in
such a magically powerful object without touching off the magic that's
already there. 

(By comparison, I think that using a person--Magical or Muggle--as a
Horcrux would have the same problem. Dumbledore thinks that even a
non-rational living creature, like a snake, is a risky Horcrux; all
the more dangerous vessel a rational person.)
> 
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> Sixteen-year-old Memory!Tom IS a Horcrux. Or more accurately, he is
> the soul fragment attached to the diary. How can he NOT have known
> that he'd already made a Horcrux?
> 
Amontillada:
Memory!Tom didn't know anything which had happened after he was
attached to the diary. Of course, we weren't told when CoS was written
that he was actually a Horcrux. But to stretch that idea, I suggest
that this soul fragment didn't know what happened after the killing
that ripped it from the rest of Tom/Voldemort's soul. It couldn't be
made a Horcrux until after the killing took place, so that was
something it couldn't know.

> Carol:
> > I agree with Orna that it's unlikely that the complex spell required
> > to create a Horcrux could be cast in thirty seconds. I'm guessing that
> > it requires an elaborate ritual incantation spoken aloud...,.
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> And just how many time-consuming spells have we seen? Complex spells,
> yeah, plenty of them, but once they've got the hang of them we've
> never seen anyone put more time into a spell than it takes to say the
> word, have we? 

Amontillada:
Word or words? Most of the spells we've seen performed required one or
two words, but potions took longer; I think more complicated,
difficult, and rare spells would also require more time. 

Voldemort's rebirth in Goblet of Fire was the longest, most complex
spell we've seen being performed in the series, I think. It required a
longer, more elaborate incantation with the ceremonial addition of
different...ingredients (bone, flesh, blood). It seems to me that the
Horcrux spell was probably more similar to this than many of the
spells "in action" that we've seen. 

While I believe that the actual killing could have been done
earlier--I also think that the Witch or Wizard would need to have the
object at hand when he or she actually performed the spell. By
comparison, Wormtail couldn't perform the rebirth spell until he had
the ingredients for the potion at hand, as well as, of course,
Voldemort's soul to enter the new body. As Voldemort himself observed,
he could have been reborn earlier if he hadn't insisted on having bone
and blood from specific sources. 

Amontillada







From alesiaglfyn at juno.com  Sat Nov 19 15:35:46 2005
From: alesiaglfyn at juno.com (Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:35:46 GMT
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
Message-ID: <20051119.073627.17392.177418@webmail22.lax.untd.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143223

Geoff wrote:
>My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
>satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the staff 
>actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him out of the 
>way?

Alesia suggests:
I think the staff didn't believe there was anything they could do.  Presumably the castle has been searched over and over again for the Chamber over the past fifty years.  It has never been found.  They didn't know where to look.  I think the staff honestly believed Ginny was either already dead or beyond rescue.  Their thoughts had already turned to the remaining students and keeping them safe and getting them home.  
Just a thought
Alesia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Nov 19 18:09:50 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:09:50 -0500
Subject: Saving Ginny
In-Reply-To: <dlnesl+73kf@eGroups.com>
References: <dlnesl+73kf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437F6A6E.7080001@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143224

mercurybluesmng wrote:
> monster, and wasn't so concerned about his own life that he'd not go
> looking for his best friend's sister.

Bart:
More than his friend's sister. After growing up, exposed to families, 
but effectively having none of his own, Harry met a large family who 
treated him like one of them. It is no great leap to say that, at the 
very least on an emotional level, Harry considers the Weasleys to be 
family, so it's more than his best friend's sister; it's practically 
like she's his own sister (which was a reason why it took them so long 
to get together...).

	Bart






From mare_anguis at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 19 12:39:47 2005
From: mare_anguis at yahoo.co.uk (mare_anguis)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:39:47 -0000
Subject: RAB is RAZ
Message-ID: <dln6ej+4f2a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143225

Wikipedia is reporting that the Dutch edition of HBP (which came out today) does translate 
'RAB' as 'RAZ,' but I can't find any other sources. Could someone in the Netherlands confirm 
it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.B.

mare_anguis








From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Nov 19 18:03:27 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:03:27 -0500
Subject: Lockhart's incompetence
In-Reply-To: <dlmte4+67s1@eGroups.com>
References: <dlmte4+67s1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437F68EF.8010904@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143226

ornadv wrote:
> I have been thinking about this. I don't understand how come, that 
> Lockhart, whose expertise should be to be able to fool people, and 
> convince them of his nonexistent talents, would brag about his 
> skills, in front of the wrong persons. 
<snip>


Bart:
It was to let the READER know he's incompetent. Remember, JKR was 
writing primarily for children, who don't look as deeply as adults do 
into things. Therefore, in order to make the book more readable by her 
primary audience, she wrote a few things that don't stand up to close 
scrutiny in order to make her point.

	Bart






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sat Nov 19 18:53:23 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:53:23 -0000
Subject: RAB is RAZ
In-Reply-To: <dln6ej+4f2a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlnsb3+4soo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143227

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mare_anguis" <mare_anguis at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Wikipedia is reporting that the Dutch edition of HBP (which came out 
today) does translate 
> 'RAB' as 'RAZ,' but I can't find any other sources. Could someone in 
the Netherlands confirm 
> it?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.B.
> 
> mare_anguis
>

Hickengruendler:

I'm not from the Netherlands and therefore can't confirm, but it is 
posted on the Leaky-Cauldron as well. On the Leaky-Cauldron they also 
said, that the Norwegian translation also fits for Regulus. They 
changed it to R.A.S. and Regulus' name in Norway is Svaart. 







From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Sat Nov 19 18:54:51 2005
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:54:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? (Was: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <dlndic+m5a0@eGroups.com>
References: <dlndic+m5a0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <253269177.20051119105451@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143228


Saturday, November 19, 2005, 6:41:16 AM, mercurybluesmng wrote:

m> What makes you think I like the idea? I have absolutely no clue as to
m> how Harry can eliminate that Horcrux without torching the Hat. We do
m> kinda need the Hat to survive intact. (Presuming Hogwarts reopens...)

Dave:
Not if (as I'm half-expecting to happen) the Hogwarts Houses are
abolished at the end of the series.

MercuryBlue:
m> Sixteen-year-old Memory!Tom IS a Horcrux. Or more accurately, he is
m> the soul fragment attached to the diary. How can he NOT have known
m> that he'd already made a Horcrux?

Dave:
He might not -- If a significant amount of time elapsed between the
murder and the Horcrux creation (see below).

MercuryBlue:
m> Voldemort uses 'significant' murders to create the Horcruxes. How he
m> or anyone can tell one soul fragment from another (nobody can see the
m> soul, remember) is utterly beyond me. Ergo, to be sure the Horcrux is
m> created with the fragment torn loose by a particular murder, it MUST
m> be created right after the murder.

Dave:
Not necessarily *right after* -- I think there could be a time delay.
I just imagine that it would have to be the *most recent* murder.

-- 
Dave




From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 18:59:11 2005
From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:59:11 -0000
Subject: RAB Revealed?
Message-ID: <dlnslv+n5ue@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143229

Antosha:

A Norwegian member of restrictedsection.org has confirmed that in the Norwegian edition of 
HBP the famous faux-Horcrux note is signed "RAS" rather than "RAB". Since the Blacks' family 
name is translated as Svaart in Norwegian, this makes it almost certain that the mysterious 
figure is in fact Regulus Black...

Just thought you'd want to know!

Here's a link to the forum thread: http://www.restrictedsection.org/boards/thread.php?
thread=1264#0

(BTW, the rest of the forum is all supposed to be PG-13-ish with occasional R forays, but the 
fic archive there is adult only. Just so we're all clear here. ^.^)

ETA: According to The Leaky Cauldron, the Dutch edition of HBP came out yesterday, and the 
note is signed "RAZ"--the Blacks are called the Zwarts in the Dutch editions, so there you go!

Here's the Leaky link: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/008026.php








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 19:17:55 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:17:55 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dln70k+r299@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlntp3+1603@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143230

> >>Geoff:
> > My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
> > satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the 
> > staff actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him 
> > out of the way?
> > <snip>
 
> >>Potioncat:
> You're right! It certainly seems that everyone gave up. If anyone  
> was doing something, or planning to do something, we weren't told  
> about it. 
> But we were told that the castle had been searched many times and 
> no one could find any evidence of the Chamber. So what could the
> teachers do, but get the other students to safety?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that the staff were really between a rock and a hard place.  
Which might explain why they turned on Lockhart with such 
enjoyment.  They knew there wasn't anything they could do and he was 
a perfect target for their frustrated aggression.  Frankly, I don't 
blame them.  Though I also think they were honestly relieved to have 
him out of their hair as they tried to deal with the crisis.

I can't think of anything the staff could have done to try and find 
Ginny.  The Chamber had been hidden for centuries; no one had a clue 
where to look for it.  Dumbledore seemed fairly sure Tom Riddle had 
opened the Chamber the last time, but he also knew that Voldemort 
was no where near the castle.  (I believe his sources had him back 
in a European forest somewhere.)  

He may have had an idea that Lucius Malfoy was behind the attack 
(through Snape) though I don't think there's anything in canon that 
suggests Dumbledore was thinking along those lines before Harry 
brought him the diary.  Even if Snape *had* ferreted out Lucius's 
involvement, Lucius himself had no clue how the diary worked, where 
the Chamber was located, and how it could be accessed.  So that line 
of inquiry would have gone no where, I think.

I do think Dumbledore suspecting Tom Riddle should have helped him 
figure out that the creature was a basilisk.  What with snakes being 
such a connection between Slytherin and Tom.  Just as Hermione made 
the connection because of Harry's knowledge of parseltongue.

I'm also surprised that no one spoke to Mirtle about her death.  I 
think Dumbledore would have been able to make the leap between a boy 
speaking some strange language and Mirtle's sudden death, just as 
Harry and Ron do.  He wouldn't have been able to access the Chamber, 
but I'm betting he would have found the snake drawing and realized 
the significance.  (I think Dumbledore had time to do this sort of 
detective work before he was booted from Hogwarts.)

So there is a bit of adult incompetence used to place Harry in the 
position of facing Tom alone.  But it's minor enough, IMO, that it 
didn't throw me out of the story.  I don't think it necessarily 
pointed towards a childhood virtue being stronger or more pure or 
something than an adulthood virtue, though.  

I've never gotten the sense that JKR is trying to say there's some 
aspect of childhood that is needed in adults.  Has anyone seen this 
message in the books?  I mean, even Harry's love power is something 
he gained from his adult mother, right?

Betsy Hp, who rambled a bit here, sorry.






From ladyljd at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 19:29:41 2005
From: ladyljd at yahoo.com (ladyljd)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:41 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlgmal+adfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlnuf5+h8vh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143231

Sydney wrote:
> It's an argument I haven't used against evil!Snape because it's more
> of a moral argument, which is not a language we use a heck of a lot in
> the film industry, but JKR seems such a humane, generous person that I
> have a hard time believing she'd invent a central character who piles
> ugliness, meaness, greasiness, and uncoolness on top of treachery,
> cowardice, and what-have-you, just so we can revel either in the
> vicious pleasure of revenge or the smug pleasure of clemency to the
> sub-human guy who has Nothing to Do with us Clean People.  

ladyljd writes:

Very well said.  I agree with your assessment of the Snape situation.
 However, unlike you, I have no belief in JKR's humanity and
generosity being extended to this character.  I believe she will
satisfy the masses a la your Fatal Attraction example by completing
her unclean!Snape destruction in book 7.  For me, her simplistic view
of this character is now crystal clear.  And a great disappointment.

LadyLjd







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov 19 19:35:45 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:35:45 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlntp3+1603@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlnuqh+n6vt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143232

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
>
> > >>Geoff:
> > > My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
> > > satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the 
> > > staff actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got 
him 
> > > out of the way?
> > > <snip>
>  
> > >>Potioncat:
> > You're right! It certainly seems that everyone gave up. If 
anyone  
> > was doing something, or planning to do something, we weren't 
told  
> > about it. 

<snip> 

> Betsy Hp:
> I agree that the staff were really between a rock and a hard 
place.  
> Which might explain why they turned on Lockhart with such 
> enjoyment.  They knew there wasn't anything they could do and he 
was 
> a perfect target for their frustrated aggression.  Frankly, I don't 
> blame them.  Though I also think they were honestly relieved to 
have 
> him out of their hair as they tried to deal with the crisis.
> 
> I can't think of anything the staff could have done to try and find 
> Ginny.  The Chamber had been hidden for centuries; no one had a 
clue 
> where to look for it.  Dumbledore seemed fairly sure Tom Riddle had 
> opened the Chamber the last time, but he also knew that Voldemort 
> was no where near the castle.  

<snip>

> I do think Dumbledore suspecting Tom Riddle should have helped him 
> figure out that the creature was a basilisk.  What with snakes 
being 
> such a connection between Slytherin and Tom.  Just as Hermione made 
> the connection because of Harry's knowledge of parseltongue.

Geoff:
Well, they certainly knew now that the Chamber existed. Was there no 
spell to locate it?

Again, Mineva McGonagall knows that Dumbledore has had a number of 
conversations with Harry, including the one after Justin was 
petrified. Dumbledore seems to believe that Harry is not implicated 
but maybe there might have been some clue in their conversations. Why 
not ask Harry if he is able to help -  she does seem to have quite a 
good deal of faith in his abilites. If he said "No", it would at 
least eliminate one line of enquiry.

I think wringing their hands and crying "Woe, alas" at this point is 
a bit early in the game. We have a girl missing, possibly dead. In 
the worst case scenario, with the "Daily Prophet" baying at the door 
and Lucius Malfoy involving himself, it could lead to a permanent 
shutdown of Hogwarts, although McGonagall seems to be taking that 
view as a line of least resistance.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 20:46:57 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:46:57 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? (Was: Voldemort's chat with Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <dlngmb+h630@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlo301+poo3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143233

MercuryBlue wrote:
> > And just how many time-consuming spells have we seen? Complex
spells, yeah, plenty of them, but once they've got the hang of them
we've never seen anyone put more time into a spell than it takes to
say the word, have we? 

> 
Amontillada responded:
> Word or words? Most of the spells we've seen performed required one
or two words, but potions took longer; I think more complicated,
difficult, and rare spells would also require more time. 
> 
> Voldemort's rebirth in Goblet of Fire was the longest, most complex
spell we've seen being performed in the series, I think. It required a
longer, more elaborate incantation with the ceremonial addition of
different...ingredients (bone, flesh, blood). It seems to me that the
Horcrux spell was probably more similar to this than many of the
spells "in action" that we've seen. <snip>


Carol adds:
Exactly. The elaborate ritual incantation involved with the
restoration of Voldemort to his body was what I had in mind when I
mentioned a complex spell that requires more than, say, establishing
the right frame of mind, pointing a wand, and saying one or two words.
Granted, the restoration ritual also involves a potion and
Horcrux-making probably doesn't, but that doesn't mean that all that's
required is committing a murder, pointing your wand at an object, and
shouting "Creo horcruxum!" or whatever. It seems quite likely that the
protective charm that DD placed on Harry while he called 4 Privet
Drive home or the Fidelius Charm also involve elaborate rituals.

We see something of the sort with the Unbreakable Vow, which involves
three people, and the one holding the wand (the bonder) is not the one
speaking the binding words. The ritual also involves kneeling and
holding hands as the, um, bondee and the speaker are bound to each
other with snaking ropes of fire. Surely something as important and
Dark as encasing a soul fragment in an object would require an equally
elaborate ritual even though only one person is involved? I doubt that
removing a soul fragment is quite as simple as placing a wand to your
head and removing a thought, and, if I'm correct, only a skilled
Legilimens can do that.

So first (not counting the murder itself and choosing an appropriate
object), you have to remove the soul fragment. Then you have to encase
the soul fragment. Then you have to put some sort of protection on the
object (or entice a reader to enter it, if it's the diary)--a curse,
as on the ring, or a potion like the one that protected the locket.
I'm guessing that the (real) locket is also protected by a curse like
the one on the ring. Certainly if it's the same locket we saw in OoP,
it's protected by some sort of locking spell. (No one at 12 GP could
open it. Interestingly, Snape was not present, or he might have
suspected it for what it apparently is.)

Obviously, I'm only speculating. But both the resurrection ritual and
the UV clearly demonstrate that magic can be more complex than the
simple one- or two-word spells that Harry and Hermione can perform.
The spells that a powerful wizard like Dumbledore or Voldemort can
cast and those that a sixth-year student can cast may be quite
different. Why haven't we seen more of these complex spells? Quite
possibly because, with the exception of "Spinner's End" and a few
similar chapters, we almost always see the action through Harry's eyes
via the third-person limited-omniscient narrator.

Carol, wishing we had seen DD releasing the soul fragment from the
ring!Horcrux and Snape saving him from its curse






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 21:02:59 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:02:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlo301+poo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051119210259.51687.qmail@web34902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143234

    CH3ed:
  I really don't think the Sorting Hat is a horcrux. It seems very unlikely that LV had learned how to make one before he graduated and as far as we know he had had no access to it after he did. Horcrux is a banned subject at Hogwarts during DD's headmastership. From Slug's memory, if it wasn't banned then too it was definitely not something taught in school. 
   
  If we are to assume that the creation of multiple horcruxes is the reason LV doesn't look like a human now(he looked less and less human after the creation of another horcrux?), then I think that that LV still looked very much the handsome young wizard when he graduated showed that he hadn't yet created a horcrux. He may have created one a few years after he graduated as his eyes were reddish in the memory where he went to see the Hufflepuff cup and Slytherin's locket. 
   
  Also, as DD said, the horcrux is something to hide, ay? To put away in a safe place...with the exception of the Riddle diary. The Sorting Hat is too exposed and too unprotected. And I'd think the founding fathers would have put some protections on the hat to prevent it from contamination.IMHO.
   
  CH3ed


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From April at cyberlinc.net  Sat Nov 19 21:22:11 2005
From: April at cyberlinc.net (April Johnson)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:22:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] RAB Revealed?
References: <dlnslv+n5ue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <021401c5ed4f$76936e60$1502a8c0@april>

No: HPFGUIDX 143235

Antosha:

Norwegian edition of HBP the famous faux-Horcrux note is signed "RAS" rather than "RAB". Just thought you'd want to know!

ETA: According to The Leaky Cauldron, the Dutch edition of HBP came out yesterday, and the 
note is signed "RAZ"--the Blacks are called the Zwarts in the Dutch editions, so there you go!

April now:

I'm just curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but wouldn't all names that start with B in norweigen or dutch be translated with a S and Z respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if the last name was Black or Benson it would still start with the same letter?  Or is that different with other languages?  I've never researched to find that out, but it makes sense that all the names with the same first letter in English would be translated with the same first letter in other languages.

Just a thought, let me know if i'm wrong!  I'd love to know for certain that its Regulas!

April


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Sat Nov 19 21:54:16 2005
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:54:16 -0000
Subject: RAB Revealed?
In-Reply-To: <021401c5ed4f$76936e60$1502a8c0@april>
Message-ID: <dlo6u8+afri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143236

> April now:
> 
> I'm just curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but
wouldn't all names that start with B in norweigen or dutch be
translated with a S and Z respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if the
last name was Black or Benson it would still start with the same
letter?  Or is that different with other languages?  I've never
researched to find that out, but it makes sense that all the names
with the same first letter in English would be translated with the
same first letter in other languages.
> 
My Norwegian is non-existent but in Dutch, no go. Black is translated
into Zwart, and Zwarts or de Zwart is a common surname. I don't know
the answer to the original. I expect that your argument for Norwegian
also is non-valid. To me it does also not make much sense. 

Gerry






From Nanagose at aol.com  Sat Nov 19 22:10:40 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:10:40 -0000
Subject: RAB Revealed?
In-Reply-To: <021401c5ed4f$76936e60$1502a8c0@april>
Message-ID: <dlo7t0+h5qq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143237

> Antosha:
> 
> Norwegian edition of HBP the famous faux-Horcrux note is signed 
> "RAS" rather than "RAB". Just thought you'd want to know!

> April now:
> 
> I'm just curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but 
> wouldn't all names that start with B in norweigen or dutch be 
> translated with a S and Z respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if the
> last name was Black or Benson it would still start with the same 
> letter?

Christina:

Sometimes the translations don't try and strictly translate the names,
particularly for people whose names actually mean something.

Just looking at some other characters with "B" names (in the Norwegian
version), Ludo Bagman is "Ludo Humbag" and Terry Boot is "Tom Blom."

The translations are huge news, because they prove that RAB can't have
anything to do with Amelia Bones, which has cropped up as a theory. 
Bones in the Norwegian version is "Beining."  In the Dutch version it
is "Bonkel."

I don't know if Regulus's name still starts with an R in the Norwegian
version, but that would be interesting to know, too (ditto Andromeda's
name starting with an A, since that's a popular fan theory as well).

If you go to answers.com and type in "List of characters in
translations of Harry Potter," they'll give you a fantastic website
with tons of really interesting name information.

Christina






From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 22:30:29 2005
From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:30:29 -0000
Subject: The two versions of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <437E72CC.3040508@erols.com>
Message-ID: <dlo925+3ln8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143238


> Whiggrrl,
> delurking to discuss another possibility:
> 
> Is it possible that Trelawney was not making an authentic prophecy 
at 
> the time of the interview, but instead was faking it, in hopes of 
> impressing Dumbledore and getting a job?  Perhaps she figured that 
> making a vague statement, favorable to Dumbledore's known 
sympathies, 
> would convince him that Divination was worth teaching and she was 
worth 
> hiring to teach it?  (If this is the case, I'm sure Dumbledore's 
and 
> Voldemort's activities since the prophecy came out have more or 
less 
> made it authentic.)  Perhaps she feels guilty at having faked her 
way 
> into her job; this would explain her tendency to avoid meals in 
the 
> Great Hall and what is clearly a serious drinking problem in /HBP/.
> 
> The detail "She continues and says, that after "that" DD seemed 
more disposed to give her a job" seems to me to support this line of 
thought.
> 
> Whiggrrl
>

Would it even matter if she faked the prophecy in the first place? 
It could have been made up, but it is real now. Voldemort and Harry 
will hunt eachother down until one is dead. A fake prophecy turned 
real? I doubt it. I think it was real the entire time, but that is 
just opinion.
Andrew






From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 22:39:04 2005
From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:39:04 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlntp3+1603@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlo9i8+4erp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143239


> Betsy Hp:
> I agree that the staff were really between a rock and a hard 
place.  
> Which might explain why they turned on Lockhart with such 
> enjoyment.  They knew there wasn't anything they could do and he 
was 
> a perfect target for their frustrated aggression.  Frankly, I 
don't 
> blame them.  Though I also think they were honestly relieved to 
have 
> him out of their hair as they tried to deal with the crisis.
> 
> I can't think of anything the staff could have done to try and 
find 
> Ginny.  The Chamber had been hidden for centuries; no one had a 
clue 
> where to look for it.  Dumbledore seemed fairly sure Tom Riddle 
had 
> opened the Chamber the last time, but he also knew that Voldemort 
> was no where near the castle.  (I believe his sources had him back 
> in a European forest somewhere.)  
> 
> He may have had an idea that Lucius Malfoy was behind the attack 
> (through Snape) though I don't think there's anything in canon 
that 
> suggests Dumbledore was thinking along those lines before Harry 
> brought him the diary.  Even if Snape *had* ferreted out Lucius's 
> involvement, Lucius himself had no clue how the diary worked, 
where 
> the Chamber was located, and how it could be accessed.  So that 
line 
> of inquiry would have gone no where, I think.
> 
> I do think Dumbledore suspecting Tom Riddle should have helped him 
> figure out that the creature was a basilisk.  What with snakes 
being 
> such a connection between Slytherin and Tom.  Just as Hermione 
made 
> the connection because of Harry's knowledge of parseltongue.
> 
> I'm also surprised that no one spoke to Mirtle about her death.  I 
> think Dumbledore would have been able to make the leap between a 
boy 
> speaking some strange language and Mirtle's sudden death, just as 
> Harry and Ron do.  He wouldn't have been able to access the 
Chamber, 
> but I'm betting he would have found the snake drawing and realized 
> the significance.  (I think Dumbledore had time to do this sort of 
> detective work before he was booted from Hogwarts.)
> 
> So there is a bit of adult incompetence used to place Harry in the 
> position of facing Tom alone.  But it's minor enough, IMO, that it 
> didn't throw me out of the story.  I don't think it necessarily 
> pointed towards a childhood virtue being stronger or more pure or 
> something than an adulthood virtue, though.  
> 
> I've never gotten the sense that JKR is trying to say there's some 
> aspect of childhood that is needed in adults.  Has anyone seen 
this 
> message in the books?  I mean, even Harry's love power is 
something 
> he gained from his adult mother, right?
> 
> Betsy Hp, who rambled a bit here, sorry.
>

Dumbledore had this uncanny ability to trust people even in the 
strangest situations. Maybe he just thought or new that Harry could 
figure it out or must figure it out in order to grow toward 
fulfilling the prophecy?
Andrew







From BrwNeil at aol.com  Sat Nov 19 23:21:29 2005
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:21:29 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] RAB Revealed?
Message-ID: <1e8.468920eb.30b10d79@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143240

 
In a message dated 11/19/2005 4:42:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
April at cyberlinc.net writes:

I'm just  curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but wouldn't 
all names  that start with B in norweigen or dutch be translated with a S and Z  
respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if the last name was Black or Benson  it 
would still start with the same letter? 
I'm no expert in languages and this is purely a wild guess, but perhaps it  
has nothing to do with the letter B at all.  It might be the case that  these 
languages all had their own unique word for the color black and that is  why 
the change in this one initial.  Benson could still be Benson because  it is 
only a name and has no other meaning, where black is a color and should be  
represented by the word that means that color in the language.  Again, I  don't 
know this as a fact, its just a guess.


 
Neil
. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 19 23:35:32 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:35:32 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlntp3+1603@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlocs4+gl9v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143241

Betsy Hp wrote:
> I agree that the staff were really between a rock and a hard place.  
> Which might explain why they turned on Lockhart with such 
> enjoyment.  They knew there wasn't anything they could do and he was 
> a perfect target for their frustrated aggression.  Frankly, I don't 
> blame them.  Though I also think they were honestly relieved to have 
> him out of their hair as they tried to deal with the crisis.
> 
> I can't think of anything the staff could have done to try and find 
> Ginny.  The Chamber had been hidden for centuries; no one had a clue 
> where to look for it. <snip>

Carol responds:
One point that hasn't yet been considered: Besides getting rid of
Lockhart and exposing his incompetence, Snape's remarks "The man! The
very man!" (and the chorus of agreement from the other teachers that
follows) point out to Lockhart that it's *his job* as DADA teacher to
find the Chamber and deal with the problem. It's *their* job,
especially as Heads of Houses, to deal with the other students. Snape
at this point is the Potions Master. His concern for Ginny is
reflected by his tight grip on his chair (SS Am. ed. 293), but he
can't act directly to solve the problem, even if he knew where the
Chamber was and how to enter it, because he isn't the DADA teacher.
Lockhart, OTOH, has the duty (though not the ability) to find out, and
do, whatever he can. McGonagall, as assistant headmistress
(effectively headmistress with DD gone) provides a time for Lockhart
to do that job and when he leaves, assigns appropriate duties to the
other teachers and Heads of Houses (295). There really isn't much else
they can do, but trapping and scapegoating Lockhart gives them a safe
way of venting their feelings and perhaps a sense of accomplishing
*something.* At least Lockhart has been told that it's *his job* to
save the girl who's been taken by the monster. He has no choice but to
do it or leave Hogwarts in disgrace.

It's clear early on in CoS that the jobs of the teachers extend beyond
the classroom to the application of their respective specialties as
needed by the school. Professor Sprout is growing the Mandrakes for
the Mandrake Restorative Potion that Madam Pomfrey will administer,
Professor Snape makes the potion (as he later makes Wolfbane Potion
and Veritaserum on demand). When Lockhart offers to make the potion,
Snape reminds him coldly, "I believe I am the Potions Master at this
school" (144). Clearly, there's a division of labor, and while it's
not Lockhart's job to make restorative potions, it *is* his job to
deal with other manifestations of the Dark Arts, just as it's Snape's
job in HBP to save Katie Bell and (presumably) to remove the curse
from the opal necklace to prevent it from claiming additional victims.
So when Snape tells Lockhart, "Your moment has come at last" (294),
he's in essence saying, "Here's your chance to do your job (not that
we believe you can really do it)."

Fortunately, Ron and Harry, hiding in the wardrobe, have overheard
this conversation, but interestingly, it's Ron who puts the
information to use. Actually believing that Lockhart will try to enter
the Chamber as McGonagall has told him to do, Ron suggests that they
go to Lockhart to tell him where they think the Chamber is (SS Am. ed.
295-96). Harry wants to do *something* and can't think of any better
plan, so he agrees. Ron reminds Lockhart that it's *his job* to save
Ginny: "You're the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher!" (297). Only
when Lockhart admits to being a fraud and tries to put a Memory Charm
on them do they take things into their own hands. Using a DADA spell
that *Snape* taught them, Expelliarmus, Harry disarms Lockhart, and
they force him at wandpoint to enter the Chamber. Granted, he's of no
use to them, merely bringing the DADA curse on his own head via Ron's
broken wand. But had Harry and Ron not overheard the other teachers
giving Lockhart the opportunity to do his job and demonstrate his
(in)competence, they would not have gone after Lockhart to help him
save Ginny.

Lockhart is not only an incompetent fraud but a selfish, amoral man
who would have wiped out two children's memories and let another child
die to save his own skin. None of the credit for saving Ginny is in
any way due to him. His presence serves only to prevent Ron from
saving his own sister, leaving Harry to confront Diary!Tom and the
Basilisk alone. But the other teachers, especially Snape and
McGonagall, *indirectly* bring about the circumstances that lead Harry
and Ron to seek out Lockhart and offer their help. Without the
stimulus of that overheard conversation (and Ron's initiative in
suggesting that they go to Lockhart), Harry would not have entered the
Chamber and Ginny would have died. Granted, no one but Harry could
have saved Ginny, but it has nothing to do with his being a child.
Even Ron, though his instincts were right about Ginny being alive and
why she was taken to the Chamber (295), could not have entered the
Chamber without Harry because he was not a Parseltongue and might well
have been killed by Tom or the Basilisk had he not been blocked by the
cave-in. The adults, with the exception of Lockhart, did the best they
could, and, like Ron, they helped Harry do what only he could
do--inadvertently, true, but I doubt he could have done it without them.

Carol, who thinks we're seeing only one example of adult incompetence
here, the same one the other teachers clearly saw 






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 20 00:24:16 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:24:16 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlmlbq+1k05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlofng+shgq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143242


> 
> Geoff:
> My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
> satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the staff 
> actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him out of 
> the way?
> 
> It seems fairly obvious that they <snip> immediately turned their 
> minds to less urgent matters such as keeping the students secure <snip>


Valky:
Not really that obvious Geoff. When Harry returns with Fawkes, Ginny,
Ron and Lockhart from the Chamber he goes immediately to MacGonagalls
office once. The beginning of Chapter 18 shows us that inside McG's
office was Molly and Dumbledore waiting for them. My assessment of
that situation is that MacGonagall's next move toward saving Ginny was
to get *someone* (anyone) in contact with Dumbledore, who knew more
than she did about the situation.

I would guess that from there Dumbledore had sent for all the
information he could think to gather on the matter. I would guess he
questioned Molly to see if he could discover where Ginny might have
come in contact with something of Voldemort's, and he probably sent
others to look for Harry. I think these are safe enough guesses now
since Dumbledore has explained more about what he knew at this time to
Harry in HBP. 

I am wondering what Dumbledore thought when Harry couldn't be found,
though. I suppose he trusted in Harry's abilities more than anything
else, since he had no other recourse but to slowly probe information
from Mrs Weasley and possibly eventually discover that Lucius was
involved and summon him to Hogwarts. Come to think of it maybe that is
why Lucius turned up. <g>

FWIW, I would say that the teachers had as good a plan as they could
come up with, given the circumstances. The Chamber could only be found
by a person with the ability to speak Parseltongue. Possibly Snape
knew something of this nature but whether he would have had the
self-confidence to allow every one else to know Harry could help, well
it's unlikely. What's more likely is that he would go looking for
Harry alone. 

Just my humble opinion.

Valky
 







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 00:27:13 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:27:13 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlnuqh+n6vt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dloft1+jq5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143243

> >>Geoff:
> Well, they certainly knew now that the Chamber existed. Was there 
> no spell to locate it?

Betsy Hp:
I doubt it.  Hogwarts was being attacked for the entire school 
year.  And before that a student died.  I think if there were that 
sort of location spell, someone would have used it.  Or they did use 
it but Slytherin had a block up of some sort.

That's why the teachers' air of helplessness worked for me.  Harry 
had an in.  He spoke the language and heard the monster creeping 
about the school.  None of the staff had even that level of knowlege 
to go with, so they didn't have much of a place to start, IMO.

(Again, I *do* think Dumbledore should have been able to figure out 
as much as Hermione did -- at least that the creature was a 
basilisk.  However, I can accept that JKR needs a certain level of 
adult incompetence for her story to work, and this slip isn't too 
egregious for me.  I do doubt any of the other staff members would 
have gotten as far as I expected Dumbledore to, except for Snape --
 'cause I think he's wonderful <g>.)

> >>Geoff: 
> Again, Mineva McGonagall knows that Dumbledore has had a number of 
> conversations with Harry, including the one after Justin was 
> petrified. Dumbledore seems to believe that Harry is not          
> implicated but maybe there might have been some clue in their     
> conversations. Why not ask Harry if he is able to help -  she does 
> seem to have quite a good deal of faith in his abilites. If he    
> said "No", it would at least eliminate one line of enquiry.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm.  McGonagall did think well of Harry at that time, though this 
pre-dated the whole "Chosen One" thing, so I don't know that she'd 
look to him for any sort of special knowledge.  And, once the 
students were safe, she may well have questioned Harry about his 
conversations with Dumbledore.  (Though, I don't think Dumbledore 
was that far out of the picture, really.  I'm betting he and 
McGonagall conversed fairly regularly.)  Plus, IIRC, the 
conversations with Dumbledore were more about how Harry *wasn't* the 
heir of Slytherin, which McGonagall would concur with.  So I'm not 
sure why she'd think Harry would be someone to go to.

> >>Geoff: 
> I think wringing their hands and crying "Woe, alas" at this point 
> is a bit early in the game.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You're being a bit harsh, don't you think?  McGonagall is getting 
the rest of the student body out of the school, a task in and of 
itself.  Also, we really don't know what sort of efforts the staff 
went through while Harry and Ron were hanging in the Gryffindor 
common room putting pieces of the puzzle together (pieces they'd 
only recently acquired).  For all we know they were pooling what 
knowledge they had, desperately checking their resources for further 
information.  The Chamber *was* incredibly well hidden.  

Personally, I think the biggest leap JKR asked of the readers was 
that Harry and Ron never shared their information while in the staff 
room, and then chose to go to Lockhart rather than McGonagall once 
they decided to speak up.  It was an OOC moment for both Harry and 
Ron, though minor enough to slide by, IMO.

> >>Andrew:
> Dumbledore had this uncanny ability to trust people even in the
> strangest situations. Maybe he just thought or new that Harry could
> figure it out or must figure it out in order to grow toward
> fulfilling the prophecy?

Betsy Hp:
It's an idea.  And it certainly explains why Dumbledore missed the 
clues Hermione picked up on.  However, it's not a theory I 
personally like because I much prefer fallible!Dumbledore to 
puppetmaster!Dumbledore.  Plus, it goes against OotP, when 
Dumbledore chose to wrap Harry in swaddling rather than put him at, 
what was essentially, an emotional risk.  I cannot reconcile OotP!
Dumbledore with a Dumbledore who'd deliberately put Harry in danger 
all in the name of a prophecy. 

Betsy Hp






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 00:53:50 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:53:50 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlnuf5+h8vh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dloheu+dgtq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143244

> >>Sydney wrote:
> > It's an argument I haven't used against evil!Snape because it's 
> > more of a moral argument, which is not a language we use a heck 
> > of a lot in the film industry, but JKR seems such a humane,     
> > generous person that I have a hard time believing she'd invent a 
> > central character who piles ugliness, meaness, greasiness, and  
> > uncoolness on top of treachery, cowardice, and what-have-you,    
> > just so we can revel either in the vicious pleasure of revenge   
> > or the smug pleasure of clemency to the sub-human guy who has    
> > Nothing to Do with us Clean People.  

> >>ladyljd:
> Very well said.  I agree with your assessment of the Snape         
> situation.  However, unlike you, I have no belief in JKR's        
> humanity and generosity being extended to this character.  I       
> believe she will satisfy the masses a la your Fatal Attraction     
> example by completing her unclean!Snape destruction in book 7.    
> For me, her simplistic view of this character is now crystal      
> clear.  And a great disappointment.

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I totally disagree.  I get the sense JKR *loves* Snape.  I know 
he's one of her more fun characters to write (per interview), but 
I'd also bet that she likes him too.  For one, it's from JKR that 
Snape gets all his too-cool moments.  And when he's going through an 
agony, JKR is the one who enables us to see that he is agonized.  
But most importantly, Snape is so much like Harry, and I know JKR 
loves Harry.  So how could she dislike Snape?  I don't doubt he'll 
*die* in book 7, but I'm betting on a hero's death.  (Probably 
taking Harry's place so Harry can get to baby-making in the 
epilogue.)

JKR does seem to have a taste for random acts of cruelty that I 
don't share (though I'll wait for the final word before I fully 
accept that she does), but I've never gotten the sense that she's 
about any sort of unclean!character writing.

Betsy Hp (who, like Carol, is pleased that Dan Radcliffe is a DDM!
Snape and a LOLLIPOPS guy. <g>)







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 20 01:10:30 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:10:30 -0000
Subject: RAB Revealed?
In-Reply-To: <021401c5ed4f$76936e60$1502a8c0@april>
Message-ID: <dloie6+lmlt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143245

April now:
> I'm just curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but 
wouldn't all names that start with B in norweigen or dutch be 
translated with a S and Z respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if the 
last name was Black or Benson it would still start with the same letter?
*(snip)*

Ceridwen:
Yes, I'd like to know if the names Hermione looked up were purposely 
translated to a 'Z' surname (in Dutch, 'S' in Norwegian) to throw 
people off, as well.  Or, is this a glitch in the cryptic puzzles?

Ceridwen.







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 20 01:37:47 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:37:47 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one.....
Message-ID: <dlok1b+rufb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143246

There's a section in HBP I've been taking at face value but it 
suddenly doesn't make sense.

Dumbledore spelled out for Harry why he is lethal to Voldemort, that 
Voldemort not only singled him out, but gave him the ability to 'see 
into his thoughts, his ambitions,...even understand the snakelike 
language in which he gives orders." (chap. 23, p. 477, UK) 

OK, got that part, the power transfer.

Dumbledore then goes on to tell Harry it's remarkable that he's 
never been seduced by the dark arts, nor to join Voldemort. Harry is 
indignant that Dumbledore would even suggest such a thing because 
Voldemort killed his parents. Dumbledore agreed by saying 'you are 
protected, in short, by your ability to love...the only protection 
that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's." 

Huh?!?

Wouldn't it actually be anger at Voldemort for killing his parents 
that keeps Harry from joining him (and anger at Snape as time goes 
on)? Hatred of the dark arts that Harry has learned along the way 
from Hagrid, Dumbledore, Lupin, Sirius, James? Those are reasons 
alluded to in text for why Harry isn't interested in joining 
Voldemort.

Taking it further, anyone who IS attracted to the dark arts or who 
has joined Voldemort--is Dumbledore saying *none* of them have the 
ability to love? That all have been 'lured' by Voldemort to join him 
because they are deficient in some way to begin with?

And the biggest thing--Harry's ability to love may protect him from 
Voldemort, but it appears to make it worse for everyone around him. 
His parents, Sirius, & Dumbledore have all died trying to protect 
him. And instead of feeling more and more angry at Voldemort for 
these deaths, who is really behind all the events to a greater or 
lesser degree, Harry instead hates Snape!

I suddenly feel like I'm missing something big, or there's a gap 
between what Dumbledore is saying and what his words actually mean. 
I don't know if there's a leap in logic that needs to be made or 
Dumbledore's words are foreshadowing for something more to come, but 
as it stands now, Dumbledore's reasoning seems incomplete.

Confused!Jen






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 19 19:04:40 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:04:40 +0100
Subject: RAB is RAZ
References: <dlnsb3+4soo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009c01c5ed3c$18b39490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143247

Hickengruendler:
> I'm not from the Netherlands and therefore can't confirm, but it is
> posted on the Leaky-Cauldron as well. On the Leaky-Cauldron they also
> said, that the Norwegian translation also fits for Regulus. They
> changed it to R.A.S. and Regulus' name in Norway is Svaart.

Miles:
I got the confirmation from a German forum with a Dutch participant.
But the only conclusion is, that the Dutch translator and the Norwegian one
are convinced, that R.A.B. is Regulus.
I would be very surprised to hear that Rowling informs the translators about
anything concerning the books to come. The translators do not have any
information we do not have - otherwise there would be too much people who
could (and certainly would) spread rumours about things we should not know.

Greetings from Germany
Miles







From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sun Nov 20 02:16:47 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 03:16:47 +0100
Subject: Not getting this one.....
References: <dlok1b+rufb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010401c5ed78$7625e2e0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143248

Jen Reese wrote:
<snip>
> Wouldn't it actually be anger at Voldemort for killing his parents
> that keeps Harry from joining him (and anger at Snape as time goes
> on)?

Miles:
Yes and no. Would he hate Voldemort for killing his parents without loving
them so deeply? Would he love them so purely without having lost them at the
age of one?
Just take Sirius as a contrast - would he hate someone for killing his
parents? ;)

Jen Reese
> I suddenly feel like I'm missing something big, or there's a gap
> between what Dumbledore is saying and what his words actually mean.

Actually I think, that Dumbledore just doesn't tell Harry the whole story.
That is the gap you feel, and I do as well. Not only here, but in general.
About Snape hearing the prophecy (only the first part? the whole one?),
about the connection between Voldemort and Harry (the glimpse of triumph in
his eyes in OotP?), why he trusts in Snape and and and...

The relation of Harry and Voldemort will become THE topic of vol 7. And I
think, we will learn a lot about Dumbledores secrets, and some of them won't
be too enjoyable for Harry.

Expecting!Miles






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 20 03:04:00 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 03:04:00 -0000
Subject: Dreams and Turbans
In-Reply-To: <dlksr0+h976@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlop30+qf4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143249

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> 
wrote:
<snipped relevant dreams, plese go upthread>
> Does anyone else see a connection? As much as we've discussed the 
> SS/PS dream we never came to a conclusion. Now we have another
> turban dream
well, sort of. So in one Malfoy turns into Snape who
> seems to turn into LV. In the next, Malfoy turns into Slughorn who
> turns into Snape. Any ideas?

Jen: Ooh, clues! Thank you for bringing this up, potioncat. 

I think both dreams are meant to tell Harry something about himself 
rather than something about the Slytherins.

The dream of Snape in the turban is the night of the sorting, and 
Harry has just discovered he would do well in Slytherin House. The 
dream in HBP comes at a time when Harry is connected to several 
Slytherins in an almost obsessive way: Slughorn to get the memory, 
Draco to figure out what he's planning, and Snape via the HBP (in 
fact, if Harry thought more about that dream he might have figured out 
Snape *was* the HBP).

Harry has this huge shadow side he's never made peace with. He's 
walking around with a 'bit of Voldemort' in him, the last heir of 
Slytherin, and doesn't question whether this has helped shape him into 
the person he is, just as much as Lily's love sacrifice. 

I think it's possible JKR will take this idea to its psychologically 
fulfilling conclusion: Harry will discover that unity within himself 
and within the WW can only be complete when the severed, rejected 
parts are accepted as part of the self and the community. 

OTOH, maybe Dumbledore's answer that Harry chose Slytherin and has 
never been tempted to join Voldemort means that Harry will outright 
reject this Sltherin part of himself in the end. But I have a hard 
time believing that ending when Dumbledore talks openly about unity 
and acts as a mouthpiece for JKR's thoughts, who believes the four 
houses represent the four elements. A more harmonious conclusion could 
be this: When the last heir of Slytherin is defeated, the bit of 
Voldemort inside Harry will die, and the split in the WW will finally 
be healed. 

Jen







From RoxyElliot at aol.com  Sun Nov 20 03:12:24 2005
From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:12:24 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
Message-ID: <22e.1e12fe9.30b14398@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143250

 
In a message dated 11/19/2005 2:49:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk writes:

Geoff:

It seems fairly obvious that they didn't expect him to  get very far 
but then immediately turned their minds to less urgent  matters such 
as keeping the students secure in the dormitories and sending  them 
home on the Hogwarts Express. There seemed to be no thought of trying  
to reach Ginny....
 
After having read the rest of the series I'd say they were waiting for  
Dumbledore to come in and save the day.  One of the things that really hit  me 
after reading book 6 was how much they all relied on him.  It's one  thing for 
Harry to rely so heavily on Dumbledore, but I do grow tired of how the  adults 
seem to expect him to solve every problem.
 
COS is my favorite book, but it's always bothered me somewhat that three 12  
year old kids figured out what the staff never could, especially considering  
that the chamber had been opened only fifty years before. Harry seems to do  
better when Dumbledore isn't around.  He trusts his own instincts  more.  I 
know that for the story to work the adults can't have all the  answers, but all 
the same their inability to even contemplate a rescue bothers  me.


CGG
http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From RoxyElliot at aol.com  Sun Nov 20 03:24:48 2005
From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:24:48 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
Message-ID: <244.1c1b2de.30b14680@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143251

 
 
In a message dated 11/19/2005 5:42:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com writes:

Dumbledore had this uncanny ability to trust people even in the  
strangest situations. Maybe he just thought or new that Harry could  
figure it out or must figure it out in order to grow toward 
fulfilling  the prophecy?
Andrew


The prophecy helps COS make more sense to me.  Harry finds the  Chamber 
because he's the only one who can.  He's Riddle's equal.  I've  always thought 
Dumbledore allowed Harry to face Voldemort in PS because of the  prophecy.  Even 
before OOTP I had a feeling that DD was somehow clued in to  Harry's destiny as 
the only person who could defeat Voldemort.
 
That being said I don't think Dumbledore knows as much about the Chamber as  
he knew about events in PS.  In HBP when he's talking to Harry about  
Horcruxes Dumbledore says that he had never encountered anything like the diary  
before.  I think Harry was the only person who could have found the chamber  and 
saved Ginny.  He's Riddle's only true equal.  Even Tom seemed to  realize that.  
That's why he wanted to badly to lure Harry to the  Chamber.
 
Roxanne
http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 03:26:52 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 03:26:52 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlmlbq+1k05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dloqds+mp7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143252

> Geoff:
> My concern is, that although there is a certain amount of smug 
> satisfaction in watching Lockhart backpedalling, what were the staff 
> actually proposing to /do/ about Ginny once they'd got him out of 
the 
> way?
> 
> It seems fairly obvious that they didn't expect him to get very far 
> but then immediately turned their minds to less urgent matters such 
> as keeping the students secure in the dormitories and sending them 
> home on the Hogwarts Express. There seemed to be no thought of 
trying 
> to reach Ginny....



Alla:

YES, Geoff thank you for expressing my point so clearly. I KNOW that 
teachers were sarcastic and did not held Lockhart iin high respect. I 
still think that the exact level of his incompetence may not have been 
known to them, but that is not even important.

My biggest problem is that teachers were NOT doing anything except 
urging Gilderoy to go there ( yeah, most likely they were not 
sincere), but I would expect a bit more action from truly competent 
adults.

I also think that it is way to early to conclude that Ginny is dead.

We can invent many, many explanations of why staff was not doing 
anything and I am sure that many of them are very creative. We are 
creative people after all. :-)

But (to me only of course) it does not change the fact that one of the 
possible explanations is that the adults have to be helpless in order 
for kids to succeed.

I think that for the most part adults incompetence works for the story 
as in we don't think that the adults are idiots, but simply humans, 
but sometimes their incompetence becomes a bit too much to swallow.

And going back to original points of brnging up examples of adult's 
incompetence, of course to me Dumbledore is a chief example of such.

He has a good heart and best intentions, but he very often fails in 
executing them.

JMO of course,

Alla.








From JLen1777 at aol.com  Sun Nov 20 03:18:55 2005
From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:18:55 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
Message-ID: <242.1e3498d.30b1451f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143253

 
Betsy Hp:
<snipped>
That's why the teachers' air of helplessness worked for me.  Harry  
had an in.  He spoke the language and heard the monster creeping  
about the school.  None of the staff had even that level of knowledge  
to go with, so they didn't have much of a place to start,  IMO.


 
 
Jaimee:
I agree, but I do have a question concerning the issue of Harry being the  
only one to be able to find the chamber of secrets and his parseltongue  
abilities.
 
First, (and I don't have the book with me, so I hope its not movie memory I  
have, but I think that in both the book and film, when Harry spoke to the 
snake  at the duel in CoS, that the others heard him "hissing" as in speaking  par
seltongue, but of course could not understand him.  
 
Now, if Harry can hear the basilisk because of his ability, shouldn't  others 
maybe hear the hissing noise?  I suppose that a noise like that  could be 
excused as something else in a drafty, old castle, or not loud enough  to detect 
as an actual "voice," but I thought it was worth mentioning.
 
Also, in HBP, when DD is showing Harry memories of Riddle, and he shows the  
ministry member, Bob Ogden (I think) going to the Gaunt's, Harry is puzzled  
when Ogden does not understand Morfin, then Dumbledore says, but you understand 
 him, don't you Harry? (paraphrase, but its something along those lines), and 
 Harry realizes that he is speaking parseltongue.  What's odd to me, is that  
Dumbledore seems as if he too must understand the conversation, or wouldn't 
he  need to ask Harry what Morfin is saying? And, if he does understand it, 
wouldn't  it seem likely that he too would have heard the basilisk in CoS?  
 
I mean I figure its all easily explained away, but I thought it might be  
worth seeing what others think on the subject.
 
Any ideas?
 
Jaimee


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov 20 07:42:52 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:42:52 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one.....
In-Reply-To: <dlok1b+rufb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlp9ds+ljte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143254

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:

> Taking it further, anyone who IS attracted to the dark arts or who 
> has joined Voldemort--is Dumbledore saying *none* of them have the 
> ability to love? That all have been 'lured' by Voldemort to join him 
> because they are deficient in some way to begin with?

Pippin:
I think this ties into what she said about Snape being "more culpable"
because he, unlike Voldemort, had known love. The Death Eaters aren't
deficient in the ability to love, they've only made a choice to shut down
their compassion. Harry, offered the same choice, has never even been
tempted to do it. He may have been unsympathetic when he saw that
Hedwig had pecked Ron and Hermione, but it's not like he felt sorry 
for them and then told himself not to. He didn't even tell himself not
to feel sorry for Snape.

Jen: 
> And the biggest thing--Harry's ability to love may protect him from 
> Voldemort, but it appears to make it worse for everyone around him. 
> His parents, Sirius, & Dumbledore have all died trying to protect 
> him. And instead of feeling more and more angry at Voldemort for 
> these deaths, who is really behind all the events to a greater or 
> lesser degree, Harry instead hates Snape!


Pippin:
Wait, are you saying that if Harry hadn't loved his parents, Sirius and
Dumbledore, they wouldn't have died? Of course it's easier for Harry
to blame Snape, because Snape is an enemy he can actually
imagine defeating. Thinking about blaming Snape releases him from 
the powerlessness he feels against Voldemort. 

Pippin






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sun Nov 20 08:27:58 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:27:58 -0000
Subject: RAB is RAZ
In-Reply-To: <009c01c5ed3c$18b39490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dlpc2e+isoo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143255

 
> Miles:
> I got the confirmation from a German forum with a Dutch participant.
> But the only conclusion is, that the Dutch translator and the 
Norwegian one
> are convinced, that R.A.B. is Regulus.
> I would be very surprised to hear that Rowling informs the 
translators about
> anything concerning the books to come. The translators do not have any
> information we do not have - otherwise there would be too much people 
who
> could (and certainly would) spread rumours about things we should not 
know.
> 
> Greetings from Germany
> Miles
>

Hickengruendler:

According to a finnish member in the Leaky-Cauldron forums, the finnish 
translator stated, that JKR told her how to translate R.A.B. And I 
guess if she does this for the finnish translation, she probably did it 
for the others as well. And really, I do not think how else it would be 
possible. If it is a totally new character it would still be okay. But 
imagine (just as an example, I really think it is Regulus and always 
thought so) that it's some relative of Ludo Bagman, who may still be 
called Bagman in the translations. If the translators changed it to fit 
Regulus, they would have a big problem in book 7.






From eileennicholson at aol.com  Sun Nov 20 08:30:09 2005
From: eileennicholson at aol.com (eileen_nicholson)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:30:09 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one.....
In-Reply-To: <dlok1b+rufb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlpc6h+416g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143256

Jen, 
I worry that I have missed your point because your confusion leaves 
me confused, so maybe I'm making a mistake here, but I'll have a go 
at responding anyway, and perhaps someone else can come along and 
sort us out :)

I thought Dumbledore was teaching here, and Harry got part of the 
point he was making but not yet the whole thing. Dumbledore was 
saying that seeking after power can be very corrupting,and that it 
was remarkable that it hadn't had the effect of corrupting Harry (a 
la Snape). Harry says that it is anger about Voldemort killing his 
parents that protects him. Dumbledore responds that it is righteous 
anger that protects him, and the only thing that protects from 
corruption is love. 

Dumbledore is saying that Voldemort put the power to corrupt Harry 
out of his, Voldemort's, own reach when he put Harry's parents beyond 
the sphere where his power of control has effect, by killing them. 
Harry now has a foot in two camps, so to speak, and Voldemort, whose 
entire value system is based on one camp, cannot compete in this 
arena. Harry has resources invested in death, if you like, that 
Voldemort cannot draw upon, and every time Voldemort achieves the 
killing of another of Harry's protectors he gives Harry greater 
power.  Dumbledore is saying that it isn't the power that's the 
problem, rather it's your choice about how you use it, and that 
having great power without the accompanying power to make the right 
choices is very dangerous.

At this point Harry has the beginnings of compassion for Tom Riddle, 
but none for Snape. He is still one step behind Dumbledore in 
understanding what is happening and where he is headed. His anger 
needs to go through another cleansing process, where he separates out 
the actions out from the perpetrator, and can forgive the perpetrator 
while condemning the actions. He'll presumably do this in book 7 by 
achieving an understanding of Snape (and, I hope, how the attraction 
of that power took Snape over to the dark side but didn't keep him 
there), in the same way that I presume James did when he transformed 
his hatred of the Dark Arts from a vendetta against all its 
perpetrators and rescued Snape from the werewolf in the Shrieking 
Shack.   

Every time Harry experiences the death of someone close to him he  
becomes more reconciled with the idea of death. If it's the next 
great adventure, and Harry as Dumbledore's man through and through is 
presumably coming to accept this maxim, then it follows that it isn't 
worse for everyone around him either; the only one who has a serious 
problem with it is Voldemort.

Eileen






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov 20 14:00:33 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:00:33 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dloqds+mp7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlpvi1+fdv1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143257

 
> Alla:
 
> My biggest problem is that teachers were NOT doing anything except 
> urging Gilderoy to go there ( yeah, most likely they were not 
> sincere), but I would expect a bit more action from truly competent 
> adults.
> 
> I also think that it is way to early to conclude that Ginny is dead.
>

Pippin:
What part of "Her skeleton will lie in the Chamber for ever" would
make them think the Heir hadn't killed this time?  I could add 
that knowing the monster was a basilisk didn't save Hermione.

The thoughtful reader has a clue that the adults aren't quite as 
dumb as Harry and Ron think they are. The message does
not say who was taken, but McGonagall has discovered that it was
Ginny. JKR can't show us the investigation which produced this
knowledge  without creating a plot hole and slowing down the story 
to account for it, because she would have had to describe a search that 
discovered Ginny's absence without exposing Harry and Ron's.

Pippin






From ornawn at 013.net  Sun Nov 20 14:22:58 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:22:58 -0000
Subject: RAB is RAZ
Message-ID: <dlq0s2+6t5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143258


>Hickengruendler:
>But
>imagine (just as an example, I really think it is Regulus and always
>thought so) that it's some relative of Ludo Bagman, who may still be
>called Bagman in the translations. If the translators changed it to 
>fit
>Regulus, they would have a big problem in book 7.

Orna:
I also think it's Regulus, and am very happy with this thought, 
because it leaves Sirius less outcast, in a way, and I have a soft 
spot for Regulus
<g>  But, even if JKR told them, how to translate 
it ? and I agree with what you said, it might still be somehow 
Sirius' mother, father, or some unknown relative.

Orna, doing her best to leave some doubts until book 7 is published.

And P.S. How goes the translation in HBP for Amelia Bones? 







From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sun Nov 20 14:21:11 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:21:11 +0100
Subject: RAB is RAZ
References: <dlpc2e+isoo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c5eddd$a8b42220$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143260

hickengruendler wrote:
> According to a finnish member in the Leaky-Cauldron forums, the
> finnish
> translator stated, that JKR told her how to translate R.A.B. And I
> guess if she does this for the finnish translation, she probably did
> it
> for the others as well.

Miles:
I'm still in doubt a bit - but I know about the Dutch translator being
contacted for it (s/he has translated to R.A.Z., Sirius Black is Sirius
Zwarts in Dutch versions), so maybe we will get additional information soon.

hickengruendler:
> And really, I do not think how else it would
> be
> possible. If it is a totally new character it would still be okay. But
> imagine (just as an example, I really think it is Regulus and always
> thought so) that it's some relative of Ludo Bagman, who may still be
> called Bagman in the translations. If the translators changed it to
> fit
> Regulus, they would have a big problem in book 7.

Miles:
The translators had big problems in books 1 to 6 too, so this argument is a
bit weak. E.g., to make the anagram "I am Lord Voldemort" work in German,
the translator hat to change Tom Riddles second name into "Vorlost", which
sounds awful not only for me ;). German readers can be glad about their
translator, who corrected his early translation "Sirius Schwarz" to "Sirius
Black" when it was obvious, that this person is important for the story.

If Rowling really decided to inform the translators about this specific
clue, this would be kind of a shift in her information strategy. She surely
had been aware (or she should have been), that especially the Dutch
translation "R.A.Z." would spoil the secret of Regulus.

Miles, who is glad not to be a translator in globalized literature...







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sun Nov 20 16:50:23 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:50:23 -0000
Subject: RAB is RAZ
In-Reply-To: <004b01c5eddd$a8b42220$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dlq9gf+j7fg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143261

 
> 
> Miles:
> The translators had big problems in books 1 to 6 too, so this 
argument is a
> bit weak. E.g., to make the anagram "I am Lord Voldemort" work in 
German,
> the translator hat to change Tom Riddles second name 
into "Vorlost", which
> sounds awful not only for me ;).  

Hickengruendler:

I know. I am from Germany as well. :-) But these problems are of a 
different kind, IMO. If R.A.B. is a Bagman or Bones, and those names 
aren't changed in the translations, then there is a pretty big plot 
hole coming. If it for example turns out to be Amelia Bones or Amy 
Benson, than the initials probably don't fit, and the translators 
have a big work to do to explain, why the initials don't fit the 
characters name at all. That's why I think that it would be good if 
JKR explained R.A.B. to the translators (and to me it seems that she 
did). The worst thing that could happen with the Voldemort anagram 
was, that they have to change Tom's real name to a really awful 
sounding one. But at least that doesn't influence in any way the 
logical progression of the storyline.

Hickengruendler







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 16:56:38 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:56:38 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one.....
In-Reply-To: <dlok1b+rufb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlq9s6+stri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143262


Jen:
> Wouldn't it actually be anger at Voldemort for killing his parents 
> that keeps Harry from joining him (and anger at Snape as time goes 
> on)? Hatred of the dark arts that Harry has learned along the way 
> from Hagrid, Dumbledore, Lupin, Sirius, James? Those are reasons 
> alluded to in text for why Harry isn't interested in joining 
> Voldemort.

a_svirn:
Ah, Potters and their famous hatred of the Dark Arts once again. 
Didn't stop Harry from using Sectumsempra or Crusatius. Didn't even 
stop him from trying AK. 
 
Besides, I don't think that Dumbledore meant that Love keeps Harry 
from joining Lord Voldemort. I believe what he was actually saying 
is that Harry's ability to love saves him from the lure of the Dark, 
in other words from the temptation to become a Dark Lord in his own 
right. It's not like the possibility haven't been discussed in 
certain quarters; and whatever Snape's saying to the contrary Harry 
is extremely powerful, not to mention the Chosen One. 

Jen:
> And the biggest thing--Harry's ability to love may protect him 
from 
> Voldemort, but it appears to make it worse for everyone around 
him. 
> His parents, Sirius, & Dumbledore have all died trying to protect 
> him. And instead of feeling more and more angry at Voldemort for 
> these deaths, who is really behind all the events to a greater or 
> lesser degree, Harry instead hates Snape!

a_svirn:
I don't think it's so very strange, actually. Voldemort is the 
Enemy, remote and kind of abstract. The very epitome of Evil, so to 
speak. Having obtained a body he became more powerful and more 
ominous; however, not being quite human himself, he doesn't inspire 
normal human emotions. You can't really passionately hate an idea, 
unless you are a fanatic. Which, praise be, Harry is not. 

Snape, on the other hand, is only too human. Moreover he's someone 
Harry knows, has known for years, and, frankly, wherever his 
loyalties lie, Harry has every reason to hate him. Also, Dumbledore 
and Sirius are someone Harry has known and loved which is more than 
can be said about his parents. 







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 20 17:26:05 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:26:05 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one.....
In-Reply-To: <dlpc6h+416g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlqbjd+11a45@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143263

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eileen_nicholson" 
<eileennicholson at a...> wrote:
> Jen, 
> I worry that I have missed your point because your confusion
> leaves me confused, so maybe I'm making a mistake here, but I'll
> have a go at responding anyway, and perhaps someone else can come
> along and sort us out :)

Jen: Hee, thank you for giving it a go because something you said 
helped tremendously! In fact, I'm going to skip to that part and 
rearrange your thoughts a bit.

Eileen:
> At this point Harry has the beginnings of compassion for Tom
> Riddle, but none for Snape. He is still one step behind Dumbledore
> in understanding what is happening and where he is headed. 

Jen: Aha! This is the point I needed to hear--Harry is a step behind 
Dumbledore. By the end of their conversation Harry is very clear 
about the prophecy, that it only matters because Voldemort acted on 
it and while Harry's choices are somewhat limited, they aren't gone.

But unless I'm mistaken, Harry still doesn't grasp the full meaning 
of his power to love and how it protects him. Dumbledore's journey 
is near the end and his understanding is beyond what Harry (and I!) 
can grasp in one sit-down chat. Dumbledore has lived through the 
experiences which make him greatly appreciate the 'incomparable 
power of a soul that is untarnished and whole'. Harry is still on 
the cusp of understanding, and the missing piece I sense in this 
conversation is the gap between Dumbledore's knowledge and Harry's 
experience. Until I get to read about the moment when Harry 
says, 'this is what Dumbledore was trying to tell me, I *get* it 
now' it seems incomplete. Well, and it should with one book to go!

Eileen went on to propose what Harry needs to experience to fully 
understand what DD told him:

Eileen:
> He'll presumably do this in book 7 by achieving an understanding
> of Snape (and, I hope, how the attraction of that power took Snape
> over to the dark side but didn't keep him there), in the same way
> that I presume James did when he transformed his hatred of the
> Dark Arts from a vendetta against all its perpetrators and rescued
> Snape from the werewolf in the Shrieking Shack.   

Jen: Transformation. I think this is a key concept to the whole 
story, given the alchemy symbolism, the phoenix--how will Harry be 
transformed by 'a force at once more wonderful and more terrible 
than death'? How will he transform his experiences from the base-
metal existence of life with the Dursleys to the gold moment of 
understanding what Dumbledore has been trying to teach him all along?

Discovering how James changed from the boy in the Pensieve to the 
man who saved his hated enemy, defied Voldemort three times and 
attempted to protect his wife and child from Voldemort would be a 
very powerful experience for Harry. I think this would be more 
powerful than finding out Lily, who seemed to be an innately 
compassionate person, cared about Severus from the start. Of course, 
the change in James could have come about because of Lily's love and 
compassion and that same force will change Harry when he finally 
learns about her.

Oh! And another idea. Miles mentioned this in #143248: "The relation 
of Harry and Voldemort will become THE topic of vol 7. And I
think, we will learn a lot about Dumbledores secrets, and some of 
them won't be too enjoyable for Harry."

Perhaps we will also see how Dumbledore transformed into the person 
Harry knows? Whatever information is left on Dumbledore, his family, 
the defeat of Grindelwald--perhaps some of what Harry learns will be 
to discover Dumbledore was just as flawed as Harry and made the leap 
that Harry himself needs to make? 

Eileen:
> Dumbledore is saying that Voldemort put the power to corrupt Harry 
> out of his, Voldemort's, own reach when he put Harry's parents
> beyond the sphere where his power of control has effect, by
> killing them. Harry now has a foot in two camps, so to speak, and 
> Voldemort, whose entire value system is based on one camp, cannot
> compete in this arena. Harry has resources invested in death, if
> you like, that Voldemort cannot draw upon, and every time
> Voldemort achieves the killing of another of Harry's protectors
> he gives Harry greater power.  

Jen: Interesting thought, Harry will actually be *more* powerful 
than Voldemort then. He was marked as his equal, but Voldemort is 
actually making him more powerful over time. I got this message from 
HBP, but your imagery of Harry having a foot in both camps, 
understanding or trying to understand what Voldemort never could, 
makes it even more clear Harry is about to surpass Voldemort in 
power.

Eileen:
> Every time Harry experiences the death of someone close to him he  
> becomes more reconciled with the idea of death. If it's the next 
> great adventure, and Harry as Dumbledore's man through and through
> is presumably coming to accept this maxim, then it follows that it
> isn't worse for everyone around him either; the only one who has a
> serious problem with it is Voldemort.

Jen: This part here bugs me still, just a tiny bit. I believe James, 
Lily, Sirius and Dumbledore were all willing to die for the cause, 
weren't afraid to die if in doing so they took another step toward 
helping Harry defeat Voldemort for good. But my reality might start 
getting sore from suspending itself if we find out pretty much 
everyone on the WW is willing to die for Harry to defeat Voldemort: 
Ginny, Ron, Hermione, Lupin, rest of the Order....I mean, they are 
all good-hearted people, and JKR has a way of writing things that 
make is completely believeable....but would everyone on the good 
side start to come across as unbelievable noble?

Jen, ageeing with both Pippin and asvirn in their observation that 
Snape is easier to hate as the enemy than Voldemort, who is somewhat 
of an unknown and an enemy difficult for Harry to imagine defeating.








From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 20 18:03:54 2005
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 20 Nov 2005 18:03:54 -0000
Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat 
Message-ID: <1132509834.15.67447.m34@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143264


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Weekly Chat 

Date: Sunday, November 20, 2005 
Time: 1:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) 

Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7
pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer
Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as
long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat"
in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to
http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of
the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room,
type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If
you have any trouble, let the elves know: 
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 

Hope to see you there! 

 





From speedy_j_g at yahoo.de  Sun Nov 20 01:39:55 2005
From: speedy_j_g at yahoo.de (speedy_j_g)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:39:55 +0100
Subject: RAB Revealed? / translations
In-Reply-To: <dloie6+lmlt@eGroups.com>
References: <dloie6+lmlt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <437FD3EB.5000902@yahoo.de>

No: HPFGUIDX 143265

April:
>Wouldn't all names that start with B in Norweigen or Dutch be 
>translated with a S and Z respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter 
>if the last name was Black or Benson it would still start with 
>the same letter?

Ceridwen:
>Yes, I'd like to know if the names Hermione looked up were 
>purposely translated to a 'Z' surname (in Dutch, 'S' in 
>Norwegian) to throw people off, as well.  Or, is this a glitch 
>in the cryptic puzzles?


I love to say this but neither in the German nor the Spanish translation is the name Black translated into Schwarz for the 
German nor Negro in the Spanish translation.

In both translations the Blacks are the Blacks. And I know for 
sure that in the Spanish version the note is signed RAB.
(Thank Merlin I know Spanish, German and English)

speedy_j_g






From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Sun Nov 20 18:34:37 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:34:37 -0500
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <dlpvi1+fdv1@eGroups.com>
References: <dlpvi1+fdv1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3133ca092fb705d296af2c60f33dac62@twcny.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143266

On Nov 20, 2005, at 9:00 AM, pippin_999 wrote:

>  Pippin:
>  What part of "Her skeleton will lie in the Chamber for ever" 
>  would make them think the Heir hadn't killed this time?? I 
>  could add that knowing the monster was a basilisk didn't save 
>  Hermione.

I respectfully disagree.  The knowledge that the monster was a 
basilisk certainly did save Hermione.  Had she not figured that 
out, she would have never been looking around corners with 
mirrors, and thus would have died instead of being petrified when 
coming "face to face" with the basilisk.

>  Pippin:
>  The thoughtful reader has a clue that the adults aren't quite 
>  as dumb as Harry and Ron think they are.

I never get the idea that Ron and Harry think the adults are dumb 
- well, except for Lockhart, but by the end of the book pretty 
much everyone thinks that.  I think Harry realizes that he has 
more information than any of the adults.  He knows what the 
monster is (thanks to Hermione), which helped him figure out who 
the murdered girl was and where she died.  He knows (again, 
thanks to Hermione) how the monster is getting around the school.  
He speaks Parseltongue, which gets them through the Chamber 
entrance.  Dumbledore is gone, and he doesn't have time to bring 
anyone else up to speed.  He just does what he has to do.


Lorie

  "There is a magic in some books
That sucks a man into connections
With the spirits hard to touch
That join him to his kind."
--Roger Waters








From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sun Nov 20 19:25:05 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:25:05 +0100
Subject: Not getting this one.....
References: <dlqbjd+11a45@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a401c5ee08$1d2525d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143267

Jen Reese wrote:
> Jen: Transformation. I think this is a key concept to the whole
> story, given the alchemy symbolism, the phoenix--how will Harry be
> transformed by 'a force at once more wonderful and more terrible
> than death'? How will he transform his experiences from the base-
> metal existence of life with the Dursleys to the gold moment of
> understanding what Dumbledore has been trying to teach him all along?

Miles:
I think at this point we should reconsider a statement of JKR, who mentioned
in an interview that she is a Christian. She said:

JKR:
 >>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.<<
(cited from Redhen http://www.redhen-publications.com/Premature.html)

Redhen analyzes this statement and comes to the conclusion, that Redemption
will be an important issue for vol 7. I haven't found it in the archive of
the list, but I'm sure it had been discussed before.
I disagree with Redhen - more or less. In my opinion the key for the
"spiritual" or moral part of book 7 will be Forgiveness.

Eileen mentioned it before:
> His anger
> needs to go through another cleansing process, where he separates out
> the actions out from the perpetrator, and can forgive the perpetrator
> while condemning the actions.

And this could be the concept that would fill the gap we are talking about,
the gap between Harry's hatred on Voldemort and Dumbledore's statement, that
the power of love is his most important source of power. I'm not talking
about Harry singing Hallelujah and Voldemort vanishing, or something like
that. But I do think that it could be an enormous source of power, if he
could transfer his (righteous) hatred into charity, becoming the first
person who does not fear, but love Tom Riddle.

Oh, writing this, I'm afraid Rowling would have a hard job not to let this
become too... sweet. And I admit it is very speculative to count on
Forgiveness as a key for book 7. But it's worth a second thougt.

Miles, who thinks that it would be a good idea of questioning Rowling on her
personal view of Christianity






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 21:16:34 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:16:34 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one..... LotR Spoiler
In-Reply-To: <00a401c5ee08$1d2525d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dlqp3i+ojn1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143268

CH3ed:
The way I read it is while LV is only capable of loving himself and 
no one else, when push comes to shove he will always sacrifice 
others to protect himself. Harry, on the other hand, is capable of 
loving others more than himself, which is a big part of why he is 
not afraid of dying. So should the situation arises Harry will not 
hesitate to do something that has the potential of killing himself 
if that will also kill LV, while LV won't sacrifice himself to kill 
Harry. 

I also think that tho LV had correctly predicted and taken advantage 
of Harry's tendency want to save others (sending the false image of 
Sirius being at the DoM in OotP) before, LV will also be liable to 
underestimate the effects of such selfless (love others first) 
sacrifice since he doesn't understand it. Just doesn't have the 
capability to understand compassion. After all, that is what 
destroyed him the first time at GH. 

<LotR Spoiler> 
I keep remembering the scene from LotR where Frodo showed Wormtongue 
mercy at Bag's End after the hobbits had banished old Saruman again, 
it was the contrast of the venomous Saruman and the mercy of Frodo 
that caused Wormtongue to snap and killed his own master. I think 
the plot dictates that there is something Wormtail has to do in Book 
7 to repay Harry his life debt.

CH3ed






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 20 20:59:27 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:59:27 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dloheu+dgtq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlqo3f+f6ep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143269

Betsy Hp <horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> Betsy Hp:
> Ooh, I totally disagree.  I get the sense JKR *loves* Snape.  
> I know he's one of her more fun characters to write (per 
> interview), but I'd also bet that she likes him too.  For one, 
> it's from JKR that Snape gets all his too-cool moments.  And 
> when he's going through an agony, JKR is the one who enables 
> us to see that he is agonized.  But most importantly, Snape is 
> so much like Harry, and I know JKR loves Harry.  So how could 
> she dislike Snape?  I don't doubt he'll *die* in book 7, but 
> I'm betting on a hero's death.  (Probably taking Harry's place 
> so Harry can get to baby-making in the epilogue.)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "love," doesn't it?  She 
loves to write the character, certainly.  But is loving to write 
the character the same as loving the character himself?  I don't 
know, but I rather doubt it.  I mean, in a sense she loves to 
write the Dursleys, as well, as she says it's fun to torture 
them.  But does that mean she loves the characters, or that she 
just loves the activity of writing the characters?  And what IS 
the difference?  Interesting psychological question, that.

> JKR does seem to have a taste for random acts of cruelty that 
> I don't share (though I'll wait for the final word before I 
> fully accept that she does), but I've never gotten the sense 
> that she's about any sort of unclean!character writing.

But then, it depends on what you mean by "cruelty" and "unclean."  
I think this is the root of the whole "poetic justice" question.  
Why is poetic justice cruel, when after all characters only 
receive what they RICHLY deserve.  And, especially, why is it 
random when what happens is so well deserved?  As punishment of 
Snape most definitely would be.

Lupinlore, who doubts that Radcliffe has any better idea of what's 
in JKR's mind than anybody else, and who further observes that
Movie!Snape and Canon!Snape are not at all the same creatures.









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov 20 21:33:07 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:33:07 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny
In-Reply-To: <dlq2u6+n0ml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlqq2j+prsn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143270

Geoff:
I thought I would try to pull together one or two of the lines of
thought which have been expressed in this thread. So here goes...

In message 143243, Betsy wrote:

>That's why the teachers' air of helplessness worked for me. Harry
> had an in. He spoke the language and heard the monster creeping
> about the school. None of the staff had even that level of
> knowledge to go with, so they didn't have much of a place to start,
> IMO.

Geoff:
I think the staff had not really taken on board the fact that Harry
was a Parselmouth and the implications of that. There were
suggestions that, because of this, he was the heir of Slytherin. I am
surprised that, as I said before, someone like Professor McGonagall
hadn't connected the dots and thought it worthwhile talking to Harry.

Message 143423 again:
> >>Geoff:
> > I think wringing their hands and crying "Woe, alas" at this point
> > is a bit early in the game.

<snip>

Betsy Hp:
> You're being a bit harsh, don't you think? McGonagall is getting
> the rest of the student body out of the school, a task in and of
> itself. Also, we really don't know what sort of efforts the staff
> went through while Harry and Ron were hanging in the Gryffindor
> common room putting pieces of the puzzle together (pieces they'd
> only recently acquired). For all we know they were pooling what
> knowledge they had, desperately checking their resources for
> further information. The Chamber *was* incredibly well hidden.

Geoff:
I think that, on their emergency agenda, they were dealing with Items
2 and 3. They were whistling gently and looking the other way in the
hope that Item 1 would go away
..

And this, remember, was before Ron and Harry spent most of the day
sitting in the common room chewing their finger nails in frustration.

Betsy:
>Personally, I think the biggest leap JKR asked of the readers was
> that Harry and Ron never shared their information while in the
> staff room, and then chose to go to Lockhart rather than
> McGonagall once they decided to speak up. It was an OOC moment for
> both Harry and Ron, though minor enough to slide by, IMO.

Geoff:
But who to share their information with? Hermione is out of the
picture and they don't know where Dumbledore is. McGonagall is
probably in one of those dismissive moods which she showed in PS when
the trio wanted to speak to Dumbledore about the Philosopher's Stone
and she packs them off into the sunshine...

In message 143250 Roxanne wrote:

> After having read the rest of the series I'd say they were waiting
> for Dumbledore to come in and save the day. One of the things that
> really hit me after reading book 6was how much they all relied on
> him. It's one thing for Harry to rely so heavily on Dumbledore, but
> I do grow tired of how the adults seem to expect him to solve every
> problem.

Geoff:
The problem is that Dumbledore was in hiding but where? It has been
suggested that Minerva McGonagall might have had some way of
contacting him because, when the group re-emerged from the Chamber
and went to her office she was there with him and the Weasleys. But I
assume that, by the time that was accomplished, "Operation Basilisk"
was well under way.














From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 20 21:22:00 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:22:00 -0000
Subject: Snape as Scapegoat (was Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser)
In-Reply-To: <dlgmal+adfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlqpdo+e4it@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143271

"Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> "Punished for WHO HE IS"?  Yikes, dude!  

Err, I think Alla is talking about Snape being punished for the
entirety of his interactions -- i.e. who he is in the sense of 
the entire pattern of his misdeeds.  Karmic or poetic justice, 
in other words.  Now, how that relates to essential character 
is a BIG question.  JKR seems to think there is a pretty tight 
connection, although not one that is simple or unalterable.  
Personally, I doubt she is working from a consistent and well-
worked out theory, here, but rather from a basic set of beliefs 
that aren't necessarily coherent or inarguable.


> I guess a lot of people are seeing Snape as fullfilling the
> 'scapegoat' role narratively.

Noooo, I think that would be more of Voldemort's role.  However, 
Snape is definitely a character who has incurred major penalties 
on one side of the balance sheet, thus raising expectations that 
these penalties will be paid in some fitting manner.  People say 
that is similar to Gollum in LOTR, although I think he is 
probably more akin to Denethor in LOTR or Thorin Oakenshield in 
The Hobbit -- i.e. a character who is not the hero or the villain, 
but one who affects the plot and who takes dramatic actions that 
require dramatic reactions to "balance" the wheel.  And note that 
in both cases, those characters' doom was closely linked to their 
general behavior and set of interactions. Thorin's doom was writ 
in his pride and anger and greed.  Denethor's was set by his 
arrogance and his habit of favoring one son over the other.  Thus 
I believe that Alla and Nora and I (and others) are saying that 
Snape's doom will be, in part, writ in his treatment of Harry.


> There isn't any chance, IMO, that this is where JKR is going 
> with Snape but that so many people WANT her to go there... I 
> dunno. It's just depressing.  

Why depressing?  It seems a rather natural and inevitable 
progression of the story.  Of course, if you mean will Snape be 
seen as the same as Voldemort, then I would say you're right.  
They are two different characters and will undergo two different 
dooms.  But simply because the doom of the one is written does 
not mean that the doom of the other will not be.  To return to 
LOTR, Sauron's doom did not spare Denethor, nor did Gollum's 
punishment release Saruman.

> It's an argument I haven't used against evil!Snape because 
> it's more of a moral argument, which is not a language we use 
> a heck of a lot in the film industry, but JKR seems such a 
> humane, generous person that I have a hard time believing 
> she'd invent a central character who piles ugliness, meaness, 
> greasiness, and uncoolness on top of treachery, cowardice, 
> and what-have-you, just so we can revel either in the vicious 
> pleasure of revenge or the smug pleasure of clemency to the 
> sub-human guy who has Nothing to Do with us Clean People.  

Well, if Snape is all those things you say then it seems pretty
inevitable that we are going to revel in one or the other.  
Otherwise, just what is she going to do with him?  I can't see 
Snape ever returning to Hogwarts, and he doesn't seem the type 
to open Ye Olde Potion Shoppe.


Lupinlore










From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 20 21:35:32 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:35:32 -0000
Subject: Not getting this one.....
In-Reply-To: <dlq9s6+stri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlqq74+4q2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143272

"a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> Snape, on the other hand, is only too human. Moreover he's 
> someone Harry knows, has known for years, and, frankly, 
> wherever his loyalties lie, Harry has every reason to hate 
> him. Also, Dumbledore and Sirius are someone Harry has known 
> and loved which is more than can be said about his parents.

Exactly, a svirn!  I have to admit, I'm rather mystified by all 
the argument that Harry's reasons for hating Snape ought not to 
matter. Why, exactly?  I'm also extremely mystified by the idea 
that resolution of this hatred and the things that led to it, 
including Snape's abuse of Harry over the last six years, would 
somehow be cruel or overkill.  Why, exactly?

To bypass all this would, as you imply, drain much of the human
element out of the story.  It becomes a titanic struggle between 
good and evil without a real human touchstone.  Now, I grant you 
JKR might do that.  Her dismissal of Sirius' death showed that 
she is capable of dismissing the human element to further her 
plot and themes.  Having said that, I would never find it good 
writing, or agree that the story can be well-crafted without such 
resolution.


Lupinlore








From tiger_queen429 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 22:57:39 2005
From: tiger_queen429 at yahoo.com (tiger_queen429)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:57:39 -0000
Subject: It's  all in the Note wasRe: RAB Revealed?
In-Reply-To: <dlo7t0+h5qq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlqv13+3lt1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143273

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" <Nanagose at a...> 
wrote:
>
> > Antosha:
> > 
> > Norwegian edition of HBP the famous faux-Horcrux note is signed 
> > "RAS" rather than "RAB". Just thought you'd want to know!
> 
> > April now:
> > 
> > I'm just curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but 
> > wouldn't all names that start with B in norweigen or dutch be 
> > translated with a S and Z respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if 
the
> > last name was Black or Benson it would still start with the same 
> > letter?
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Sometimes the translations don't try and strictly translate the 
names,
> particularly for people whose names actually mean something.
> 
> Just looking at some other characters with "B" names (in the 
Norwegian
> version), Ludo Bagman is "Ludo Humbag" and Terry Boot is "Tom 
Blom."
> 
> The translations are huge news, because they prove that RAB can't 
have
> anything to do with Amelia Bones, which has cropped up as a 
theory. 
> Bones in the Norwegian version is "Beining."  In the Dutch version 
it
> is "Bonkel."
> 
> I don't know if Regulus's name still starts with an R in the 
Norwegian
> version, but that would be interesting to know, too (ditto 
Andromeda's
> name starting with an A, since that's a popular fan theory as 
well).
> 
> If you go to answers.com and type in "List of characters in
> translations of Harry Potter," they'll give you a fantastic website
> with tons of really interesting name information.
> 
> Christina
>
All of this is well and good, but a careful reading of the note in 
the locket, it is painfully clear that Regulus Black is indeed RAB. 
There are several words in the note that make that clear.

"To the Dark Lord"

The name the Dark Lord is a name Harry notes is only used by Death 
Eaters. As a Death Eater, Regulus would have used that name.

"I know that I will be dead long before you read this"

Regulus died only a few days after he quit the Death Eaters. He must 
have known what such a betrayal would have cost him. Karkaroff faced 
the same fate once he left the Death Eaters. That is why he ran and 
hid.

"but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret."

Voldemort prides himself on being very secretive and not needing 
anyone. He would not be happy that some low level lackey discovered 
his secret. There are many ways in which Regulus could have found 
this out, I do not know, but I imagine that being a follower and 
talking with other members would have given Regulus some insight 
into the past and secrets of Voldemort. Voldemort is not perfect, so 
there is a possiblity that he could have let something slip. This I 
would say is the weakest part of any arguement, but I would be the 
same, if not more difficult for any other character that people 
select. But, as a Death Eater, Regulus would have been in the best 
place to gather some information about this. 

"I have stolen the real Horcux and intend to destroy it as soon as i 
can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you 
will be mortal once more."

For RAB to know what a Horcrux was, he would have had to have some 
knowledge about the Dark Arts, something that many Death Eaters 
would have. But,this also shows his limited knowledge of Voldemort. 
In my opinion, this note suggest that its author thinks that there 
is only one Horcrux. Another point, the author states that they 
would face death, Karkaroff died over a year after the return of 
Voldemort. Regulus died after only a few days which means that he 
faced what was coming his way. And that he may have not had the time 
to destroy the locket and that it is the locket mentioned in Book 5. 
Feel free to disagree with me. I just think that all of the clues 
are there if you look and read carefully. Every sign points to 
Regulus. There is now one better for us to assume.

Tiger







From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Mon Nov 21 00:12:21 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:12:21 -0500
Subject: Not getting this one..... LotR Spoiler
In-Reply-To: <dlqp3i+ojn1@eGroups.com>
References: <dlqp3i+ojn1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <9361f36247841c91a36595c662128769@twcny.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143274

On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:16 PM, h2so3f wrote:
> <LotR Spoiler>
> I keep remembering the scene from LotR where Frodo showed 
> Wormtongue mercy at Bag's End after the hobbits had banished
> old Saruman again, it was the contrast of the venomous Saruman 
> and the mercy of Frodo that caused Wormtongue to snap and 
> killed his own master. I think the plot dictates that there is 
> something Wormtail has to do in Book 7 to repay Harry his life 
> debt.


I agree.  I just spent the weekend re-reading the first three 
books, getting ready to start re-reading GOF, before I see the 
movie again.   At the end of COS Harry is really hard on himself, 
blaming himself for letting PP live, and taking the blame for the 
future return of LV.  AD makes a big point of telling Harry that 
he did the right thing saving PP, that his father would have done 
the same thing, and that a wizard who is saved by another wizard 
always has a life-debt to his savior.

Lorie


"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly 
making exciting discoveries."
--A. A. Milne







From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Mon Nov 21 00:17:57 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:17:57 -0500
Subject: Snape as Scapegoat (was Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser)
In-Reply-To: <dlqpdo+e4it@eGroups.com>
References: <dlqpdo+e4it@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5bf6a36bcb4e368e59932bc4cf3a38d5@twcny.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143275

On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:22 PM, lupinlore wrote:

>  Otherwise, just what is she going to do with him?? I can't see
>  Snape ever returning to Hogwarts, and he doesn't seem the type
>  to open Ye Olde Potion Shoppe.


I fully expect Snape to perish in aid to Harry.  I truly believe 
he is a good guy who has let his dislike and jealousy of JP shine 
through, obscuring the fact that he is on the side of AD, HP, and 
the OOP.  I think that is going to be one of the eye-opening scenes 
for Harry, and I think it'll happen because he owes JP his life.

Lorie

"There's nothing better than a good friend, except a good friend 
with chocolate."
--Linda Grayson, "The Pickwick Papers"







From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Mon Nov 21 00:24:46 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:24:46 -0500
Subject: Not getting this one..... LotR Spoiler
In-Reply-To: <9361f36247841c91a36595c662128769@twcny.rr.com>
References: <dlqp3i+ojn1@eGroups.com> <9361f36247841c91a36595c662128769@twcny.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20bf37c8b08ffb46b818f61281a76cb2@twcny.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143276

On Nov 20, 2005, at 7:12 PM, Lorie J. O'Donnell wrote:

> At the end of COS Harry is really hard on himself,


Sorry, this should have been GOF, not COS.  It's been a long 
HP weekend!

Lorie

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for 
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
--Benjamin Franklin







From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 21 00:54:31 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:54:31 EST
Subject: Not getting this one.....
Message-ID: <1ef.4737ba7f.30b274c7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143277

 
Jen: 
> And the biggest thing--Harry's ability to love may protect  him from 
> Voldemort, but it appears to make it worse for everyone around  him. 
> His parents, Sirius, & Dumbledore have all died trying to  protect 
> him. And instead of feeling more and more angry at Voldemort  for 
> these deaths, who is really behind all the events to a greater or  
> lesser degree, Harry instead hates Snape!

Pippin:
Wait, are you saying that if Harry hadn't loved his parents,  Sirius and
Dumbledore, they wouldn't have died? Of course it's easier for  Harry
to blame Snape, because Snape is an enemy he can actually
imagine  defeating. Thinking about blaming Snape releases him from 
the powerlessness  he feels against Voldemort. 








Julie:
I think Snape is easier to hate too, and I mean that literally.  Despite
a couple of encounters, Voldemort still remains a shadowy figure to
Harry (and everyone else). He killed Harry's parents, ordered Cedric
killed, as well as Dumbledore, and basically orchestrated the  disaster
at the DoM when Sirius died. But how do you hate a shadow, except
in the same somewhat distant way you view the object of that  hate?
 
OTOH Snape is no shadow. He's a flesh and blood, thinking and  feeling,
ever-present person in Harry's life (other than during the summer  months).
Harry has interacted directly with him on a regular basis for six years. 
It's much easier to feel real, visceral hate toward Snape, and Harry's  hate
was pretty well-cemented *before* Dumbledore's death (the one thing  he
can directly pin on Snape, at least from what his eyes told him--if  there's
more to it, he, and we, don't know it yet). 
 
If you think about it, Harry's hate of Snape has been much stronger,
in so far as his emotional reactions, than toward Voldemort or even 
toward Wormtail (more directly responsible for Harry's parent's  deaths,
and directly responsible for Cedric's death). Harry has directed most  of
his negative energy toward Snape, who, should he be DDM! as far as
loyalty goes (leaving out his shades of OFH/Grayness), is not a  danger
to him or the WW, while focusing much less on the very proven danger 
of Voldemort and his DE cronies. 
 
Fortunately Snape will not be regularly present in Harry's life in  book
7 in the physical sense, and without his ever-present sneer (in  Harry's
POV anyway!) rubbing salt in old wounds, Harry should be able to focus 
on his real enemies. (And Snape may turn out to be a  real enemy, but
for some time now that distinction has been a moot point to  Harry, who
has seen Snape as *his* enemy regardless.) 
 
Julie 
(who still expects Snape to help Harry in book 7, be it covertly, or  overtly
at the end, or both)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 01:28:19 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:28:19 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlqo3f+f6ep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlr7rj+7tvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143278

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Ooh, I totally disagree.  I get the sense JKR *loves* Snape.
> > <snip>  

> >>Lupinlore: 
> Well, it depends on what you mean by "love," doesn't it?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That she'd totally hang with him.  That when he's hurt she feels for 
him.  That when he dies (as I'm afraid he will) she will weep for 
him.  That he's one of her babies and she cares for him, warts and 
all.  He is just like Sirius, and Dumbledore, and Harry for her.  In 
his own Snape-like way.

I don't get the feeling Snape is anything like the Dursleys for 
JKR.  She's written him as far too three-dimensional for that.  The 
Dursleys are there to be tortured (not my favorite schtick, but 
there you are) but not Snape.  Because when he does visibly suffer, 
his suffering is described as matching Fang's suffering.  And no one 
sane writes about a beloved and innocent pet being burned alive 
expecting the audience to *not* sympathize with the animal.

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > JKR does seem to have a taste for random acts of cruelty that 
> > I don't share (though I'll wait for the final word before I 
> > fully accept that she does), but I've never gotten the sense 
> > that she's about any sort of unclean!character writing.

> >>Lupinlore: 
> But then, it depends on what you mean by "cruelty" and "unclean."  
> I think this is the root of the whole "poetic justice" question.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I took "unclean" to mean a character so deprived of any sort of 
humanity that the audience calls for blood without a tinge of 
compassion.  I don't think JKR has written Snape this way.  In fact, 
I'd go so far as to say she hasn't written *any* character as 
totally evil and devoid of sympathy.  Even Tom Riddle, abandoned by 
his mother, evokes a bit of compassion.

I do see a huge difference between cruelty and poetic justice.  
Going back to the movie "A Christmas Story," when Richie beat up the 
bully, that was poetic justice.  If his *father* had beaten up the 
bully, that would be cruelty.

If Harry had jumped Draco all by himself on the quidditch pitch in 
OotP, that could have been poetic justice.  Jumping Draco with a 
loaded fist and the backup of a Weasley twin was cruelty.  Hagrid 
giving Dudley a pig's tail because he was mad at Vernon was 
cruelty.  The twins strangling Dudley was cruelty.  The twins nearly 
killing Montague was cruelty.  Harry using the basilisk's fang to 
destroy the diary was poetic justice.

It's a question of power.  Watching someone powerful stick it to 
someone weaker is not a great example of poetic justice, IMO.  

Betsy Hp






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 21 01:36:01 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:36:01 -0000
Subject: RAB Revealed? / translations
In-Reply-To: <437FD3EB.5000902@yahoo.de>
Message-ID: <dlr8a1+t0dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143279

Speedy:
> I love to say this but neither in the German nor the Spanish 
translation is the name Black translated into Schwarz for the 
> German nor Negro in the Spanish translation.
> 
> In both translations the Blacks are the Blacks. And I know for 
> sure that in the Spanish version the note is signed RAB.
> (Thank Merlin I know Spanish, German and English)

Ceridwen:
Nice to know this.  Thanks!  But, I was wondering about the alternate 
names for R.A.B. that Hermione dug up.  How are Rosalind Antigone Bungs 
and Rupert 'Axebanger' Brookstanton (pg. 636 HBP Scholastic, ch. 
thirty, The White Tomb) translated?  Do they also have the initials 
changed in the Dutch and Norwegian, to preserve some sort of doubt 
about the identity of R.A.B.?

Ceridwen.






From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 21 02:02:35 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:02:35 EST
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
Message-ID: <c0.33f40f33.30b284bb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143280

 
Lupinlore:

Lupinlore, who doubts that Radcliffe has any better idea of what's  
in JKR's mind than anybody else, and who further observes  that
Movie!Snape and Canon!Snape are not at all the same  creatures.





Julie:
I hope I'm not crossing over too much, but this subject does  allude
to Book canon. I don't know if Dan has any better idea what's in  JKR's
mind than the rest of us, but he does know that JKR told Alan Rickman
something important about his character, something she *didn't* do
with any of the other actors. We've heard this before, and Dan also
mentioned it again in recent interview. Thus I think Movie!Snape and
Canon!Snape do share something pivotal that we aren't yet aware of,
which is probably Snape's ultimate motivation/allegiance. (I can't  really
think of anything other than that for JKR to share with Alan, beyond
a surprise revelation like "Snape is really Dumbledore's nephew." It  has
to be something pretty pivotal for JKR to go out of her way to  make 
sure Alan is aware of it as he portrays Snape.)
 
Julie 
--who wishes she'd been a fly on the wall during *that*  conversation!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 21 02:05:33 2005
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:05:33 -0000
Subject: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence)
In-Reply-To: <242.1e3498d.30b1451f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dlra1d+ni74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143281

Jaimee wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143253 :

<< Also, in HBP, when DD is showing Harry memories of Riddle, and 
he shows the ministry member, Bob Ogden (I think) going to the
Gaunt's, Harry is puzzled when Ogden does not understand Morfin, then
Dumbledore says, but you understand him, don't you Harry? (paraphrase,
but its something along those lines), and Harry realizes that he is
speaking parseltongue. What's odd to me, is that Dumbledore seems as
if he too must understand the conversation, or wouldn't he need to ask
Harry what Morfin is saying? And, if he does understand it, wouldn't
it seem likely that he too would have heard the basilisk in CoS? >>

I can fantasize that Dumbledore drank a potion that gave him a
temporary ability to understand Parseltongue in order to understand
what Morfin was saying.






From paul5847 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 01:55:51 2005
From: paul5847 at yahoo.com (Paul Griffith)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:55:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Hermione knowing monster was a basilisk (was Re:  Saving Ginny) 
In-Reply-To: <3133ca092fb705d296af2c60f33dac62@twcny.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20051121015551.79392.qmail@web52302.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143282

>  Pippin:
>  I could add that knowing the monster was a basilisk didn't 
>  save Hermione.

Lorie:
> I respectfully disagree.  The knowledge that the monster was 
> a basilisk certainly did save Hermione.  Had she not figured 
> that out, she would have never been looking around corners 
> with mirrors, and thus would have died instead of being
> petrified when coming "face to face" with the basilisk.


My name is Paul and I am new to the list. I have been reading 
messages all day long trying to get a feel for what is going on.

First off, let me say I thought I was a big Harry Potter fan, 
some of you are more knowledgable than I am.

But on this point I must agree with Lorie, she's right. The only 
way Hermione saved herself was with the mirror, looking around 
corners because she knew what was in the chamber.

I look forward to being an active member of the group.

I went Friday afternoon to see the new movie and loved it, albeit 
a little on the dark side and with some important, or what I deem 
to be important, parts left out and others changed.

  Paul





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 21 02:16:46 2005
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:16:46 -0000
Subject: 12 OWLs/CanOpener/SecretTunnel/Petunia/Unforgivables/ThoseCloseCalls/Teacher
Message-ID: <dlrame+5bfi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143283

MercuryBlue wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143018 :

<< the question of just how can anyone get twelve O.W.L.s... >>

IIRC, Hermione received her 11 OWLs in:

1. Astronomy
2. Care Of Magical Creatures
3. Charms
4. DADA
5. Herbology
6. History of Magic
7. Potions
8. Transfiguration
9. Ancient Runes
10. Arithmancy
11. ?????  

Divination and Arithmancy were only half-day exams, so if Ancient
Runes (that Hermione took while Harry and Ron had Friday off) was 
also a half-day exam, she could have taken another half-day exam 
that same day. Some listies have suggested that she (and every other
Muggle-born) could ace the Muggle Studies OWL without taking the class
(altho' I think they'd fail for failing to give the erroneous answers
taught in class). I suggest instead that the wizarding world is so
different from the Muggle world that there could be an OWL exam that
only prefects are allowed to take (so Harry wouldn't know about it,
and Ron doesn't seem the type to take any more OWL exams than he HAS
to), with questions about leadership and discipline and authority.

I had another idea, that one History of Magic exam tests for 2 OWLs,
maybe one for the BC History of Magic and one for the AD History of
Magic. I don't know if seeing Harry's OWL results blows that out of
the water, or if it can be argued that they don't further depress
people who failed both by telling them that they missed TWO
qualifications.

In any case, I don't understand how Hermione only got 11 OWLs when
Bill and Percy got 12. She has been established as an unusually
outstanding student that doesn't come along as often as every 4 years,
and they wouldn't have passed Muggle Studies by being Muggle-born. If
they both got both 2 History OWLs and Prefect OWL, why didn't she?

Darqali wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143023 :

<< {I don't know what wizards use for a can opener, for example. I use
an old hand type, though I know there are electric models. I expect
wizards open cans sometimes, but don't wonder why we don't see what
they use in place of an electric can opener because there is no need
for JKR to tell us.} >>

I expect they just tap the can with their wand, or maybe the cans are
enchanted to open themselves when a painted dot on the lid is pressed
-- that way, children too young for a wand could also open a can.

CH3ed wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143034 :

<< Why is there a secret passage from Hogwarts to Honeydukes' 
cellar? >>

A candy shop will get more profit from teen-age frequent customers
than a magical devices shop, a book shop, a stationery shop, etc,
therefore Honeydukes has more motive to provide Hogwarts students 
with an easy access than the other Hogsmead shops do. (I don't think
Hogsmead *has* a teen-age trendy clothing shop to buy 200-Galleon
trainers and 800-Galleon jumpers, because the school uniform means 
the kids don't get much chance to wear trendy stuff during the school
year.)

(And a shout-out to 143034
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143081 who went
from students using it to shop at Honeydukes to wondering if any of
the Death Eaters had used it when they were students.)

PJ midnightowl wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143058 :

<< Petunia isn't a "regular" muggle. Her sister was a Witch and both
her Brother-in-law and nephew were/are Wizards. She was well aware of
all this and just what it entailed when they took Harry in. Their
desire not to have anything to do with the WW goes down the tubes once
they *willingly* take a Wizard into their homes to raise! >>

DD said Petunia took Harry 'grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly,
bitterly, yet still she took you' (OoP Chapter 37). 

I think that means she took him willingly if 'willingly' means 'not
under Imperius or Confundus or a Love Potion' but unwillingly if
'willingly' means 'not under threats'. DD may have been 'too noble' to
threaten Petunia that he would curse Dudley if she didn't take Harry,
but I don't think he was too noble to tell her that the people who
killed Lily would come after her family just to 'collect the set' (to
borrow Slughorn's phrase from another context) and that he would give
the Dursleys magical protection ONLY if she took Harry.

Steve bboyminn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143066 :

<< Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and
resources. If he had a full complement of Charms, Spells, Curses, 
and Counter-Curses, and finely honed skills, he wouldn't have to
resort to Unforgivables. Given that all he has to work with are
schoolyard bullying jinxes and the Unforgivables with nothing
practical inbetween, they have really left Harry kind of powerless.
When schoolyard jinxes and curses aren't enough, Harry has no were 
to go but to the dark and unforgivable. >>

That's what his Triwizard preparation was about (from the author, I
guess, rather than from Dumbledore, as DD had no intention of entering
him into the Tournament). There, we saw him fight off Grindylows with
'Relashio!" and use 'Reducto!' to blow a hole (neither as deep as a
well nor as wide as a church door, but it sufficed) in the hedges, and
also use the Stunning Curse.

As Jen said in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143086 :
<< Rage, pain, and vengeance are at the root of his use of
Unforgiveables. >> 

It could be considered ironic that if Harry had kept enough control
over his emotions to think what curse to use on Bella instead of
lashing out, he could have cast Stupefy and captured her, or Relashio
with a good chance of burning her to death.

Juli wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143128 :

<< Aurors have used Unforgivables, presumably without horrible damage
to their souls, because their intent was Good. >>

Aurors have used Unforgiveables without being thrown into Azkaban or
otherwise punished, because the wizarding government had authorized
Aurors to use Unforgiveables because of the war. Canon tells us
nothing of whether it damaged their souls. It may be that using
Unforgiveables with good intentions and legal authorization
nonetheless did damage to souls. 

I think a torn soul can be mended but still has scars (when part of a
torn soul is caged in a Horcrux, then it cannot grow back to the rest
of the soul like torn flesh grows back together). 

I don't know if Alastor or Frank or Alice ever cast Unforgiveables --
Sirius said something about Moody never killed if he could capture
instead, and there are other ways to kill than AK. But it *could* be
that well-intended, necessary, even heroic killing in the line of duty
to protect the innocent civilians left scars on their souls that made
them more vulnerable to madness. Was Moody's paranoia the result of
his experiences or was it his personality to start with?

Lucianam wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143142 :

<< There's no denying AK is 'unforgivable', since it is classified as
such in canon. I'm not sure its unforgivability is absolute, though.
Sure, we have three horrible curses that will get you a life-long
sentence in Azkaban, but notice they won't get you a death sentence.
Wizarding law won't torture you to madness either, in case that was
the crime you committed. >>

A life sentence to Azkaban with Dementors IS being tortured to madness.

Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143143 :

<< I do disagree with your last example, I have to say. I am assuming
that you are specifically talking about Marauders running around with
Remus, right? I consider those excursions NOT to be the case of
selfishness, but poorly executed case of noble intentions - to be
there for their friend in the situation of need. And we DO know that
Remus needed them not just for fun, but because he was calmer with
Prongs and Padfoot around, no? >>

Nitpick: their noble intention of keeping Remus company (and more
sane) while he was transformed was well (altho' illegally) executed 
by being illegal Animagi so they could break curfew by hanging out
with him all night in the Shrieking Shack. But then, as Remus said,
'highly exciting possibilities were open to us now that we could all
transform. Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the
school grounds and the village by night.'

The helpfulness turned to selfishness when they grabbed at those
'highly exciting' possibilities. DEFINITELY innocent selfishness: at
least the three non-werewolves didn't really believe that anyone could
get hurt, as they were confident that 'Sirius and James transformed
into such large animals, they were able to keep a werewolf in check.'

(And a shout-out to Sydney who spoke before I did in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143163 )

Pippin replied to Alla in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143151 :

<< If they had been robbing the villagers' homes in order to provide
their impoverished friend with some well-deserved spending money,
would that have been poorly executed noble intentions too? >>

Well, yes. The intention would have been noble (the cliche of Robin
Hood) altho' the execution would have been quite selfish. Innocently
selfish, as you mentioned previously, as at least James and Sirius,
maybe Peter as well, came from rich families and might well not have
realised that there ISN'T ALWAYS plenty more in the Gringotts vault.

<< They were robbing the villagers of their safety and that's just as
bad. >>

I don't agree with you, I don't think I can explain why, except for
some vague gobbledegook about violating a person's home ... anyone who
stayed in their house at night was safe, as the Marauders weren't
breaking into houses. The analogy would be stealing bicycles that were
left outside rather than robbing homes.

<< I suppose Fenrir just has poorly executed noble intentions,
also, since all he wants is companionship and a better life for
werewolves. >>

Now THAT is altogether unworthy of you. You read too well and closely
not to have noticed that Fenrir is seeking pain on the parents, not
the campanionship of new young werewolves nor the perpetuation of the
werewolf way of life, and that he DOESN'T want a better life for
werewolves, except presumably to the limited extent of eliminating
werewolf hunters ... he LIKES living feral.

Sydney added in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143168 :

<<  By 'close calls', I assume that people were endangered but 
the situation was averted in the nick of time. Responsible people 
in charge of dangerous animals do not involve them in 'many close
calls'. >>

I have to question just HOW close those calls were. If one drunk 
saw a werewolf running at him and a stag and a big dog run at the
werewolf and push it away from him, everyone who heard the story 
would tell him that he'd been seeing things. But if many drunks and 
a few sober people with perfectly good reasons for being out after
dark saw an attacking werewolf and their pair of animal saviors, word
would have gotten around. Not just word that 'there's a werewolf in
the Forbidden Forest', but word of the stag and big dog working
together to save humans. (If the saviors were two of the same kind of
animal, it would have been somewhat less freaky.) Dumbledore would
have figured out what was going on, and he would have put a stop to
it, by 'reminding' James of how much risk he was putting his friend
Remus in. Because James wouldn't have listened to a boring old
scolding about how much danger he was putting the villagers in; he
would say (and believe) 'They're perfectly safe; we're in control of
the werewolf.'

Deborah wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143188 :

<< And being a wizarding/witching teacher in the UK means that career
opportunities are not superabundant, unless one goes off to the
(former) colonies and teaches in New Zealand or Bangla Desh. >>

I fantasize that there are job opportunities as tutors for adults who
have discovered the usefulness of a subject they blew off in school.
As there is Kwikspel, shouldn't there also be Adult School (night school)?







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 02:23:59 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:23:59 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlr7rj+7tvq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlrb3v+fuj8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143284


Betsy HP:

> I do see a huge difference between cruelty and poetic justice.  
> Going back to the movie "A Christmas Story," when Richie beat up 
the 
> bully, that was poetic justice.  If his *father* had beaten up the 
> bully, that would be cruelty.
> 
> If Harry had jumped Draco all by himself on the quidditch pitch in 
> OotP, that could have been poetic justice.  Jumping Draco with a 
> loaded fist and the backup of a Weasley twin was cruelty.  Hagrid 
> giving Dudley a pig's tail because he was mad at Vernon was 
> cruelty.  The twins strangling Dudley was cruelty.  The twins 
nearly 
> killing Montague was cruelty.  Harry using the basilisk's fang to 
> destroy the diary was poetic justice.
> 
> It's a question of power.  Watching someone powerful stick it to 
> someone weaker is not a great example of poetic justice, IMO.  



Alla:

Well, personally I think all those incidents ARE poetic justice, 
because none of those characters got hurt out of nowhere, but 
because of something they did earlier, but if you dislike calling 
it "poetic justice", I think " karmic retribution" or "vicarious 
retribution" is just perfect, no?

Again, I interpret " vicarious retribution" as retribution for 
something bad which character did, but terms of the story will not 
let the author punish the character directly.

Let's put aside Draco for a second, because  we will never agree on 
what kind of punishment he deserves, I suspect. :-)

Let's look at Dudley. Hagrid indeed gave him a pig tail because he 
was mad at Vernon ( quite deservingly, I'd say, but of course Hagrid 
should have done it to Vernon), BUT I can also interpret Hagrid 
doing to Dudley as carmic retribution for all those years of "Harry 
hunting" Dudley and gang engaged in.

So, do I think that THAT crime of Dudley is not proportionate to the 
punishment? Nope, I think it much LESS than Dudley deserved, but 
constraints of the story would not let JKR come out and say 
something like " Dudley, you are so bad, you should be punished for 
what you did to Harry". It is also would be rather awkward writing ( 
IMO only), so Dudley gets undirect punishment, which is done again 
IMO for the emotional satisfaction of some readers ( myself 
definitely included).

It is indeed a question of power, BUT it is very telling IMO that in 
the interaction between Dudley and Hary, Harry is the weakest, so it 
is immensely satisfying to me to see the balance of power switching 
even if Harry is not  the one who does the punishment yet. I think 
those " undirect punishments" are quite common for the series and 
personally I love it.

JMO of course,

Alla.






From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Nov 21 04:58:49 2005
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:58:49 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] It's  all in the Note wasRe: RAB Revealed?
In-Reply-To: <dlqv13+3lt1@eGroups.com>
References: <dlqv13+3lt1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1138632203.20051120205849@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143285


Sunday, November 20, 2005, 2:57:39 PM, tiger_queen429 wrote:

t> Regulus died after only a few days which means that he 
t> faced what was coming his way. And that he may have not had the time 
t> to destroy the locket and that it is the locket mentioned in Book 5. 

Unless he died destroying the locket.

-- 
Dave




From ms-tamany at rcn.com  Mon Nov 21 05:32:49 2005
From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:32:49 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] RAB Revealed?
In-Reply-To: <1e8.468920eb.30b10d79@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4g7bqh$3s5nc4@smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143286

In a message dated 11/19/2005 4:42:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
April at cyberlinc.net writes:

I'm just  curious and don't know if this has been discussed.. but wouldn't 
all names  that start with B in norweigen or dutch be translated with a S
and Z  
respectivly?  So it wouldn't matter if the last name was Black or Benson  it

would still start with the same letter?

[Now Neil says:]   
I'm no expert in languages and this is purely a wild guess, but perhaps it  
has nothing to do with the letter B at all.  It might be the case that
these 
languages all had their own unique word for the color black and that is  why

the change in this one initial.  Benson could still be Benson because  it is

only a name and has no other meaning, where black is a color and should be  
represented by the word that means that color in the language.  Again, I
don't 
know this as a fact, its just a guess.

Neil

[Now Tammy says:] 
Neil, you have it right.  Having lived in two different European countries
in my youth, and having studied several languages while living there (though
that was over 25 years ago and I can't speak a thing but English anymore), I
can assure you that, when a book is translated, any names without
significant meaning are either carried over as is (ie, a Benson would be a
Benson in German, or in French, or in Italian), or the names are changed to
similarly nondescript names in the new language (such as, a Benson would be
a Schnickengruber in German, or a LeTour in French, or a Rizzo in Italian),
but when the name needing translation has a significant meaning, such as a
color (Black), or a profession (Wainwright - one who builds wagons, by the
way), or a state of being (Young), or whatever other actual MEANING, then
that name is translated into the word in the new language that means that
same color, or a guy who builds wagons, or the word for young.  The letter
it starts with originally has absolutely no bearing on what letters other
languages use.
 
So, if the Dutch translation lists RAZ and the Norwegian translation has
RAS, and Sirius' last name starts with Z in Dutch and S in Norwegian, then
we can safely assume that RAB is, indeed, Regulus A. Black.  At least, it's
quite sufficient for me to lay MY mind to rest about that particular
conundrum.  What *I* am wondering is how Regulus got the locket by himself,
or who did he take with him, and did Regulus or his accomplice drink the
potion?  My mind tends then to wonder if Kreachur once had a brother
house-elf who went off with young Master Regulus one dark, stormy night, and
never returned.  Or maybe if Kreachur wasn't always so nasty until young
Master Regulus took him for a little boat ride and a refreshing drink one
bright sunny day.
 
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 11/20/2005
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 21 03:46:18 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 03:46:18 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlr7rj+7tvq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlrfua+h8au@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143287

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That she'd totally hang with him.  That when he's hurt she 
> feels for him.  That when he dies (as I'm afraid he will) she 
> will weep for him.  That he's one of her babies and she cares
> for him, warts and all.  He is just like Sirius, and 
> Dumbledore, and Harry for her.  In his own Snape-like way.


And yet she thinks he's a totally horrible person and doesn't 
understand why anyone likes him.  Is she lying?  <Shrug> Doesn't 
seem much like love to me.

> I don't get the feeling Snape is anything like the Dursleys 
> for JKR.  She's written him as far too three-dimensional for 
> that.  The Dursleys are there to be tortured (not my favorite 
> schtick, but there you are) but not Snape.  Because when he 
> does visibly suffer, his suffering is described as matching
> Fang's suffering.  And no one sane writes about a beloved and 
> innocent pet being burned alive expecting the audience to *not* 
> sympathize with the animal.

Except when it's Trevor and Snape is trying to poison him?  Sorry, 
couldn't resist that one.

<SNIP>
> Jumping Draco with a loaded fist and the backup of a Weasley 
> twin was cruelty.  Hagrid giving Dudley a pig's tail because 
> he was mad at Vernon was cruelty.  The twins strangling Dudley
> was cruelty.  

Sorry, I'll have to go with Alla on this one.  These seem perfect 
examples of poetic justice to me.


Lupinlore









From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 07:04:47 2005
From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:04:47 -0000
Subject: RAB is RAZ
In-Reply-To: <004b01c5eddd$a8b42220$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dlrrif+tht9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143288

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <xmilesx at g...> wrote:
<snip>

> Miles:
> The translators had big problems in books 1 to 6 too, so this argument is a
> bit weak. E.g., to make the anagram "I am Lord Voldemort" work in German,
> the translator hat to change Tom Riddles second name into "Vorlost", which
> sounds awful not only for me ;). German readers can be glad about their
> translator, who corrected his early translation "Sirius Schwarz" to "Sirius
> Black" when it was obvious, that this person is important for the story.
> 
> If Rowling really decided to inform the translators about this specific
> clue, this would be kind of a shift in her information strategy. She surely
> had been aware (or she should have been), that especially the Dutch
> translation "R.A.Z." would spoil the secret of Regulus.
> 
> Miles, who is glad not to be a translator in globalized literature...
>

Antosha:

We know that translators contact Rowling for confirmation that their assumptions are 
correct, and that she does in fact give them straight answers--the Portuguese translator of 
the books queried Blaise Zabini's gender, since s/he needed to use the proper article, and 
was told authoritatively (accurately, as it turns out) that Blaise was a boy. I don't think it 
was about the author changing her tactics, I think it was about the translators doing their 
jobs and querying the author's plans, since she's shown a propensity for playing games 
with this sort of clue in the past.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 08:20:15 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:20:15 -0000
Subject: Teaching Harry
In-Reply-To: <dlrame+5bfi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlrvvv+cv5e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143289

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at w...> wrote:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> Steve bboyminn wrote in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143066 :
> 
> << Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and
> resources. ...edited... When schoolyard jinxes and curses 
> aren't enough, Harry has no were to go but to the dark and 
> unforgivable. >>
> 
> CatLady:
> 
> That's what his Triwizard preparation was about ...
> 

bboyminn:

No doubt that Harry is ahead of most of the students in school, but he
is unfathomly far behind other talented adult wizards in the books.
Certainly, Sirius, Remus, Arthur, Bill, maybe even Molly, etc... are
all far more knowledgable about magical defense than Harry is. 

Plus, no one can hold candle to Dumbledore's skill and knowledge.
While Dumbledore remained calm in his battle with Voldemort in the
Ministry of Magic, it was clear that he did not command the situation.
He and Voldemort were pretty evenly match, though perhaps Dumbledore
had a slight edge. Harry can't do anything near the level of dueling
we see from Dumbledore, Sirius, or Remus. 

Further Harry doesn't just have a need for general defense spells; he
is fated to defeat Voldemort, and Harry is now aware of that fact.
Other have been aware of that fact, or at least suspected, for much
longer than Harry. Given that Harry has such a monumental task, and
the task he must go through just to get to Voldemort is nearly as
overwhelming and monumental as defeating Voldemort, he is woefully
unprepared.

Now, on top of all that, he has to find and destory the Horcruxes. To
do that, he needs to be able to spot enchantments and magical
'residue', which he can't, and he needs to be able to break the curses
protecting the Horcrux, which he can't, and he needs to be able to
destroy the Horcruxes, which he may not know how to do yet.

Harry's need is far and away above the needs of others, yet in many
areas, he is far below others in his level of knowledge.

I still say that if Harry doesn't start training hard in the next book
then all logic and reason have gone out the window.

Steve/bboyminn







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 21 11:42:38 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:42:38 -0000
Subject: Teaching Harry
In-Reply-To: <dlrvvv+cv5e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlsbre+5i96@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143290

- 
> > Steve bboyminn wrote in
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143066 :
> > 
> > << Harry has been given a pathetic set of Dueling skills and
> > resources. ...edited... When schoolyard jinxes and curses 
> > aren't enough, Harry has no were to go but to the dark and 
> > unforgivable. >>
> > 
> > CatLady answered:
> > 
> > That's what his Triwizard preparation was about ...
> > 
> 
> Steve bboyminn also wrote:
> 
> No doubt that Harry is ahead of most of the students in school, but 
> he is unfathomly far behind other talented adult wizards...

> Plus, no one can hold candle to Dumbledore's skill and knowledge.
...
> Harry can't do anything near the level of dueling
> we see from Dumbledore, Sirius, or Remus. 
> 
> Further Harry doesn't just have a need for general defense spells; 
> he is fated to defeat Voldemort...

> Given that Harry has such a monumental task....
> 
> Now, on top of all that, he has to find and destory the Horcruxes.


Valky now:
I am of the opinion, Steve, that those who believe Harry is not up to
the task are set up by JKR to be all too pleasantly surprised by book
seven, for that reason, I don't seek to change your mind or persuade
your thinking, I wouldn't want to ruin said surprise. ;D

OTOH there are just a couple of specific points that you made in this
post that I would like to deliberate just for the sport of it. 




Steve wrote: 
> To do that, he needs to be able to spot enchantments and magical
> 'residue', which he can't, and he needs to be able to break the 
> curses protecting the Horcrux, which he can't, and he needs to be 
> able to destroy the Horcruxes, which he may not know how to do yet.
...... 
> I still say that if Harry doesn't start training hard in the next 
> book then all logic and reason have gone out the window.
> 

Valky:
I say to this, not necessarily, and my reasoning is consistent with
well known aspects of plot development within the written part of the
series. 

Above you say Harry can't detect magical residue - apparently true as
far as we know, However, the HP series has some considerable reknown
for JKR's ability to transform an old and seemingly inconsequential
passage of text within the existing canon into singularly obvious
logical precedent for crucial plot development. Sirius and Scabbers
are the most famous and cited examples of this, as well as the Snake
in PS/SS preceeding the discovery of Parseltongue, penetrating stares
preceeding the discovery of Legilimency and etc etc. Upon this, I
submit that, we have seen Harry detect magic before. 

This happened very early on in the piece, nothing substantial has yet
come of it but, as you fairly state above, if Harry has this ability
it is time he/we discovered it or else he is sorely lacking in
important training for the task ahead.

So now I direct you to the canon ;D -
PS/SS Diagon Alley (in Ollivander's shop)
Harry felt strangely as though he had entered a very strict library;
he swallowed a lot of new questions which had just occurred to him and
looked instead at the thousands of narrow boxes piled neatly right up
to the ceiling. For some reason, the back of his neck prickled. The
very dust and silence in here seemed to tingle with some secret magic.

I admit, it is a small thing that Harry can detect this magical
residue. And a small part of the task. But it does seem to cover the
all important ability to detect and discern specific attributes of the
magic. Harry pegs this magic in Ollivander's as 'secret' with only his
raw intuition. It's within reason for Harry to have developed slightly
beyond this stage during his six years tuition, and not entirely
unimaginable that this development, along with the aid of Hermione's
incredibly extensive knowledge of magic advanced beyond the Trio's
level, could be just enough to get them a toe over the line. Plenty
for our heroes in this saga, right? :D

Further you have said above that Harry can't break the curses that
protect a Horcrux - again, apperently true to the best of our
knowledge. However, he has so far been quite successful in the
physical battle against age old curses and dark magics such as having
the ability to overcome the Imperius, the extraordinary underage skill
of producing a corporeal patronus at 13, plus his incredible
achievements in the Chamber of Secrets and the Little Hangleton
Graveyard prove that he possesses what can only be described as
prodigious raw talent, reflexes and accuracy in defensive battle.
Besides all of this of course, as others have said, Harry has a grand
array of human resources, among those who love him are Bill Weasley -
a highly reputable curse breaker with the respect of WW creatures
whose protective defense magics are second to none, and Fawkes the
Phoenix - a healer of otherwordly order, and a friend in battle to
Dumbledore's loyal men. Again, without further training or development
it could be made believeable for Harry to get himself over the line on
curse-breaking. However I would stipulate that it might become
unbelievable here for Harry to break the curses on four or five
Horcruxes using these resources and skills. I *would* say that was
beginning to become contrived. But since there are only likely to be
two or three (or even as few as one) specific Horcruxes needing him to
apply curse-breaking I am content to believe that we *will* be
pleasantly surprised.

Finally, you contend that Harry doesn't know how to destroy Horcruxes.
And on this point, I believe, you have the most ostensible canon
refuting you, Steve. What we know about Harry's ability to destroy
Horcruxes is rather compelling just as it is in the Chamber of
Secrets. "Then without thinking, without considering, as though he had
meant to do it all along..." Harry successfully destroyed Voldemort's
Horcrux. If Jo only intends for Harry to be qualified in the
destruction of Horcruxes by virtue of some whimsical power mystique he
is not yet fully aware of, then it has logical steps laid all the way
to it, all we'd require there is an explanation.

That all said, I reiterate, I'd rather not persuade you against your
current line of thinking just in case it spoils the pleasant surprise
that could be in store for skeptical readers in book seven.

In my Humble Opinion
Valky




 


 
 


 


 







From miamibarb at BellSouth.net  Mon Nov 21 12:11:35 2005
From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:11:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Harry
In-Reply-To: <dlrvvv+cv5e@eGroups.com>
References: <dlrvvv+cv5e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20b8612691d2ce7aa46c28e8dd81604b@bellsouth.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143291


On Nov 21, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Steve wrote:

>  >
>
>  bboyminn:
>
>  No doubt that Harry is ahead of most of the students in school, but he
>  is unfathomly far behind other talented adult wizards in the books...
>
>  ...Harry's need is far and away above the needs of others, yet in many
>  areas, he is far below others in his level of knowledge.
>
>  I still say that if Harry doesn't start training hard in the next book
>  then all logic and reason have gone out the window.
>

Harry is pretty powerful, and even as a child, he is more powerful than 
the majority of adults. I think we are shown repeatedly shown Harry's 
weaknesses because they will used as a strategical strength.  Unlike 
Voldemort, who is a loner who doesn't share very much with even his 
closest followers, and who thus needs to be the best in everything.  
Harry will need others to assist him with solving the Horcrux 
situation.  Harry doesn't have to have be the best in every category of 
magic. Harry won't be the one reading runes et al., it will be 
others... we are talking Team!Harry.  It is likely that  that with 
Dumbledore gone, that LV will once again underestimate the oppostion. 
I'm sure that LV believes that no one of significance will learn 
of...much less destroy the Horcruxes.    Also because magic always 
leaves traces that are identifiable,  that when LV senses the 
opposition, it will be a little harder for him to figure out who it is 
exactly.  Especially so, if LV continues to underestimates  school 
children.

I think one of  the main things that Dumbledore was trying to convey to 
Harry in the HBP is that LV is a loner, but that Harry needs to work 
with his friends.

Barbara Roberts, who may be late for work!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Mon Nov 21 12:57:42 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:57:42 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <20051119210259.51687.qmail@web34902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dlsg86+ik37@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143292

CH3ed:
> I really don't think the Sorting Hat is a horcrux. It seems very 
unlikely that LV had learned how to make one before he graduated and 
as far as we know he had had no access to it after he did.

MercuryBlue:
The diary Horcrux, may I remind you, was created when he was SIXTEEN. 
Nobody graduates until they're at least closing on EIGHTEEN.

CH3ed:
>   Also, as DD said, the horcrux is something to hide, ay? To put 
away in a safe place...with the exception of the Riddle diary. The 
Sorting Hat is too exposed and too unprotected.

MercuryBlue:
Value-added bonus for Riddle regarding the Sorting Hat as a potential 
Horcrux: He doesn't have to expend any effort to protect it. Everyone 
else will do it for him. It IS an important part of the only magical 
school in the British Isles, after all.

> Amontillada:
> I find that to be the main reason why it couldn't be a Horcrux: it's
> hard to believe that even Voldemort could place a soul fragment in
> such a magically powerful object without touching off the magic 
that's
> already there.

MercuryBlue:
Do we know that?

> Amontillada:
> Memory!Tom didn't know anything which had happened after he was
> attached to the diary. Of course, we weren't told when CoS was 
written
> that he was actually a Horcrux. But to stretch that idea, I suggest
> that this soul fragment didn't know what happened after the killing
> that ripped it from the rest of Tom/Voldemort's soul. It couldn't be
> made a Horcrux until after the killing took place, so that was
> something it couldn't know.

MercuryBlue:
Shredded souls seem to function perfectly normally until one of the 
shreds is separated from the rest. I'll accept that Diary!Tom is in a 
blank about anything that happened after the creation of the Horcrux, 
but he MUST know what happened after the murder(s) that allowed the 
Horcrux to be created. His whole Chamber adventure, after all, was in 
between.

MercuryBlue








From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Mon Nov 21 13:12:19 2005
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:12:19 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Fawkes turn up??
Message-ID: <dlsh3j+on8g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143293

Thanks for the response on my previous doubt about Harry's blood.  Here's another of my doubts....

When the duel between AD and LV was taking place, Fawkes comes there 
and swallows an avada kedavra aimed at AD... without which AD would 
not be alive... and the ministry is SO very far away from Hogwarts.

So, when the entire conversation between AD and Draco (DM) was taking 
place on the castle ramparts itself (IMO, ample time for Fawkes to have 
sensed danger to its master), why didn't Fawkes turn up?  It would 
have been obvious that Fawkes would have turned up immediately, yet 
he does not 'appear' to be there until after everyone's gone inside. 
Why has this important link between AD and Fawkes been ignored, in HBP 
all of a sudden??? 

be safe,
scam.












From xmilesx at gmx.de  Mon Nov 21 15:11:37 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:11:37 +0100
Subject: RAB is RAZ
References: <dlrrif+tht9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005d01c5eead$de949700$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143294

antoshachekhonte wrote:
> We know that translators contact Rowling for confirmation that their
> assumptions are correct, and that she does in fact give them straight 
> answers--the Portuguese translator of the books queried Blaise 
> Zabini's gender, since s/he needed to use the proper article, and
> was told authoritatively (accurately, as it turns out) that Blaise
> was a boy.


Miles:
We are still very speculative on this, aren't we? The sex of a person is not part of an important clue like the signature R.A.B. is. So, your example of translators in contact with Rowling IMO is not significant for the question we discuss.

As I stated before, I know that some Dutch readers want to contact their
translator (who translated R.A.B. in R.A.Z., Z. for Zwarts as the Dutch
version of Black). Hopefully we will know whether he had a guess - or better information than we all have.

Miles







From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Mon Nov 21 17:46:47 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:46:47 -0000
Subject: Sorting out the Sorting Hat haha
Message-ID: <dlt167+sfpl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143295

 There has recently been some discussion of the sorting hat as a
horcrux. I have to say that I see this as a distinct possibility.
Further, I would bet that there is SOME connection between the hat and
Voldemort. There are several good arguments against this theory.
However, I believe that there is plenty of good canon evidence for the
theory. First of all, the hat has been tinkered with by all 4
founders. Keeping in mind Riddle's obsession with artifacts of the
founders, I do not see how he could leave the sorting hat alone. There
is also the fact that this is perhaps the most protected wizarding
artifact in all of Britain. Voldemort wouldnt have to take any extra
precautions with the hat. It is already in Dumbledore's office. I
believe that even as a horcrux, the hat would still have to serve the
purpose it was originally designed for. The magic of those 4 wizards
is too strong for Voldemort to interfere with. Not that he would want
the hat to quit serving it's purpose of dividing the magical
population of Britain. One final thought . In C.O.S, Arthur makes a
very profound statement that is Italicized by Rowling."Never trust
anything that can think for itself (if you can't see where it keeps
its brain.)" ()=italicized I think that this is a fairly hypocritical
statement considering that everyone in that room puts faith in an
object that fits this description. Why did J.K.Rowling include this
statement and why did she italicize it if is not important. I belive
she is making a subtle hint here about the sorting hat, which figures
very strongly into this story. If anyone has any thoughts on this I
would love to hear them.






From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Mon Nov 21 17:55:14 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:55:14 -0000
Subject: Teaching Harry
In-Reply-To: <20b8612691d2ce7aa46c28e8dd81604b@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <dlt1m2+df7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143296

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barb Roberts <miamibarb at B...> wrote:
(snip)
 Harry won't be the one reading runes et al., it will be 
> others... we are talking Team!Harry.  
> I think one of  the main things that Dumbledore was trying to convey to 
(snip)
> Harry in the HBP is that LV is a loner, but that Harry needs to work 
> with his friends.
  
  I agree 100%. I really believe that the power Harry has that
Voldemort knows not, is love, but more specifically friendship. Harry
has freinds that will follow him into hell. Why is it that the only
people that Dumbledore allowed Harry to tell about the prophecy and
horcruxes were Ron and Hermione? I think it is because DD knew that
Harry will only defeat Voldemort with the help of those two. It has
always been my opinion that the trio will make a very powerful whole
in order to defeat  Voldemort. It will take Hermione's mind, Harry's
will and Spirit, and Ron's heart and loyalty to destroy Voldemort.
That is what I hope we will see in the 7th book.
truthbeauty1






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Mon Nov 21 18:23:50 2005
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:23:50 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Fawkes turn up??
In-Reply-To: <dlsh3j+on8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt3bm+m3u8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143297

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" <brahadambal at i...> 
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response on my previous doubt about Harry's blood.  
Here's another of my doubts....
> 
> When the duel between AD and LV was taking place, Fawkes comes 
there 
> and swallows an avada kedavra aimed at AD... without which AD would 
> not be alive... and the ministry is SO very far away from Hogwarts.
> 
> So, when the entire conversation between AD and Draco (DM) was 
taking 
> place on the castle ramparts itself (IMO, ample time for Fawkes to 
have 
> sensed danger to its master), why didn't Fawkes turn up?  It would 
> have been obvious that Fawkes would have turned up immediately, yet 
> he does not 'appear' to be there until after everyone's gone 
inside. 
> Why has this important link between AD and Fawkes been ignored, in 
HBP 
> all of a sudden??? 
> 
> be safe,
> scam.
>

Hickengruendler:

Well, it either is a plothole (which can very well be possible) or 
Dumbledore didn't want Fawkes to appear. Even if you don't believe in 
a Snape-Dumbledore conspiracy to kill Albus, it can be explained with 
the second possibility, I think. Dumbledore was in real danger while 
fighting Voldemort. He obviously did not think he was in such danger 
when talking to Malfoy, and he was of course proven right. Therefore 
Dumbledore probably thought that Fawkes wasn't needed, since he was 
sure that Draco wouldn't do it.

But that of course does not explain, why Fawkes didn't appear after 
Fenrir and the other Death Eaters made it on the tower. Undoubtly, 
Dumbledore was in danger at least then. The answer  find most logical 
is, that Dumbledore knew his time was up, and that he would die from 
the Potion anyway. Therefore there was no need for Fawkes to protect 
him, since he would die anyway. But then, I'm a firm believer in DDM!
Snape. And therefore it's probably no surprise, that I think it was 
on purpose that Fawkes didn't appear.

Hickengruendler, who thinks the mysterious absence of Fawkes on the 
tower would be a much bigger plothole, than some possible 
inconsistencies regarding the timeline in the night of the battle at 
the DoM








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 18:34:32 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:34:32 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlsg86+ik37@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt3vo+t4n4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143298

CH3ed wrote:
> > I really don't think the Sorting Hat is a horcrux. It seems very 
> unlikely that LV had learned how to make one before he graduated and 
> as far as we know he had had no access to it after he did.
> 
> MercuryBlue responded:
> The diary Horcrux, may I remind you, was created when he was
SIXTEEN. Nobody graduates until they're at least closing on EIGHTEEN.

Carol responds:
Forgive me, but your tone here (and elsewhere) is a bit harsh. There's
no need to get your back up when you disagree with someone or when
they disagree with you.

It's true that the diary was *written* when Tom was sixteen (the
memory that it contains is himself near the end of his fifth year and
he would have turned sixteen the previous January), but its original
purpose was to "continue Salazar Slytherin's noble work" of weeding
out "Mudbloods" using the Basilisk. It was not originally a Horcrux,
as *he did not know how to make one at that time*. (Also the only
person he had killed was Myrtle, using the Basilisk, and it's not
clear whether her death counts as a murder that will split the soul
since technically the Basilisk killed her.)

When he wrote the diary (placed the memory of himself in it), he had
not yet killed his father and grandparents, who were apparently AK'd
the following summer. He returned to school wearing the ring, which
could not have been a Horcrux or he would not have asked Slughorn how
to create one. Evidently the information he needed was not available
in the Hogwarts library, either, or he would not have needed to talk
to Slughorn. He *may* have discovered it the following summer (between
his sixth and seventh years), possibly by visiting Grindelvald (whose
single Horcrux it appears that Dumbledore later destroyed), but he
certainly did not know it and could not have created a Horcrux (either
the diary or the ring) before that time. He did, however, have both
objects in his possession and no doubt *intended* to make them into
Horcruxes: Both meant something to him personally and were connected
in some way with Salazar Slytherin; the diary, at least, already had
powers of its own, and the ring, being made of gold and not subject to
decay, was suitable as the first standard (noninteractive) Horcrux.
His soul, too, was already split by either three or four murders
(depending on whether we count Myrtle). The only problem was that he
did not yet know how to put the soul parts into the objects when he
conversed with Slughorn during his sixth year.

During his seventh year, at age seventeen to eighteen, he *may* have
had the requisite knowledge to create a Horcrux. Or he may have
acquired that knowledge after he left school to work at Borgin and
Burkes. There is some alteration in his appearance (the thin cheeks
and the eyes that glow red) when we next see him (at Hepzibah Smith's
house) obtaining the objects for two more Horcruxes, so I speculate
that by this time he has already created the first two Horcruxes, the
diary and the ring. The next time we see him, at the DADA interview,
his features are blurred, indicating that he has created still more
Horcruxes, presumably the locket and the cup. But he has not yet
acquired the snakelike features of the full-blown Voldemort, so he
probably has two more Horcruxes yet to make, one of them being Nagini,
who, it seems, is his true soulmate. (I think we're safe in assuming
that he intended to find the fifth object at Hogwarts and was
thwarted, and that he cursed the DADA position in revenge.)

I've stated before that I think the creation of a Horcrux, being Dark
magic of the worst order, requires an elaborate ritual along the lines
of the restoration incantation or the Unbreakable Vow (different in
not requiring additional participants or a potion but nevertheless, an
elaborate procedure requiring preparation, skill, and care. I doubt
very much if he could just point his wand at the sorting Hat and cast
a two-word spell like my invented "Creo Horcruxum!" 

Moreover, we've seen that the Sorting Hat has a mind of its own over
and above the "brains" of the four Founders poured into it when the
school was divided into four Houses. It's clearly not influenced by
Tom Riddle's thinking. (JKR says it has never been wrong.) 


MercuryBlue wrote:
> <snip> I'll accept that Diary!Tom is in a blank about anything that
happened after the creation of the Horcrux, but he MUST know what
happened after the murder(s) that allowed the Horcrux to be created.
His whole Chamber adventure, after all, was in between.

Carol responds:
We know the date of the memory Tom placed in the diary: June 17 of his
fifth year. At that point, he (or the Basilisk) had killed only one
person, Myrtle. So Diary!Tom knows nothing of subsequent events except
what Ginny has revealed about Harry. The memory of Tom who seduces
Ginny and Harry into reading the diary is not necessarily identical to
the soul fragment which is introduced into it later to make it a
Horcrux, but the soul fragment does give Tom additional powers that a
mere memory would not have had--not merely possessing Ginny to make
her control the Basilisk and kill the roosters but using her soul or
life force to give life and power to the otherwise insubstantial memory.

The soul fragments serve one purpose--to link Voldemort to the earth
and prevent him from dying. That's the whole point in creating or more
Horcruxes. The diary is the only Horcrux, AFAWK, that also contains a
memory, the only one that could be activated by someone writing in it.
It's also the only one that's made of a flimsy substance like paper or
leather; the others (except Nagini) are made of indestructible gold
(or silver?) and need to be hidden, protected from intruders like
Dumbledore or RAB who would seek to destroy them and release the soul
fragment to go beyond the Veil. (Or I'm guessing that that's what
happens--two of the seven pieces are waiting in vapor form for the
other five to join them. The whole idea of Horcruxes is rather vaguely
sketched, so we don't know for sure.)

For all the reasons I've already stated here or elsewhere (it isn't
made of a valuable substance, it isn't indestructible, it has a mind
of its own that hasn't been contaminated by Tom Riddle's thoughts, it
could not be tampered with without the portraits witnessing the
tampering, Diary!Tom sneers at it in the Chamber of Secrets scene with
Harry), I really don't think that the Sorting Hat is a Horcrux. I'm
not saying that it *isn't* one, only that IMO, it's unlikely.

And as I said earlier, the diary was not originally a Horcrux. It was
written near the end of Tom's fifth year, but it could not have been
made into a Horcrux until at least Tom's seventh year--after the
Riddle murders and the conversation with Slughorn, which apparently
happened in his sixth year (based on the narrator's statement that he
was by no means the oldest boy in the room, which suggests that he was
a sixth year but there were seventh years present). If the
conversation took place in his seventh year (and the older boys were
merely a few months rather than a year or so older), he could not have
 created the ring and diary Horcruxes until after he left school.

Carol, hoping for a courteous and respectful response






From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 18:38:55 2005
From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:38:55 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlrfua+h8au@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt47v+q6bp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143299

(Or: Snape and cruelty to animals)
Betsy Hp:

<Because when [Snape] 
> > does visibly suffer, his suffering is described as matching
> > Fang's suffering.  And no one sane writes about a beloved and 
> > innocent pet being burned alive expecting the audience to *not* 
> > sympathize with the animal.
> 
>
Lupinlore: Except when it's Trevor and Snape is trying to poison him?
 Sorry, 
> couldn't resist that one.
> 

I'm with Lupinlore on this one, and I'll go a bit further. The burning
hut scene cost Snape the last shred of sympathy or trust he could have
hoped for from me. Betsy's right: anyone should sympathise with "a
beloved and innocent pet being burned alive." Snape doesn't - he's
completely oblivious to Fang. 

I don't know what trauma even a DDM!Snape might have been experiencing
at the moment, and more to the point, I don't care. He's obviously
aware of the whole situation - see his responses to it, and to Harry.
Harry has just gone through plenty of trauma on his own (surely a
DDM!Harry in the cave is analogous to a DDM!Snape on the tower? Though
I don't buy the latter...). He's aware of Fang's fear and agony (he's
conflated with the narrator in this scene), and when Snape runs, Harry
chooses to let him run so that he can save Fang, rather than trying to
pursue him and leaving Fang to die. 

Snape could have saved Fang at any point at no cost to himself (do you
think Voldemort would compromise himself by killing his most useful
operatives for being sentimental about dogs? If he were that dim he'd
never have learnt to spell "horcrux," much less make six of the
things). He never even tries - a simple "Accio Fang" would have
sufficed. Harry does the right thing - what any human with the
smallest scrap of decency anywhere would do - and saves Fang
immediately (i.e., as soon as he has his wand and can use it). Snape
was letting him burn alive.

So yes, between Fang and Trevor, my opinion of Snape is shot. I don't
care if I'm wrong and he still turns out to be a white hat. I say let
Harry use him for target practice.

(Can you tell I'm an animal person?;)

-hekatesheadband

Because the sorting hat is really Bono.







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 19:02:11 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:02:11 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlrb3v+fuj8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt5jj+lb2f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143300

> Betsy HP:
> 
> > It's a question of power.  Watching someone powerful stick it to 
> > someone weaker is not a great example of poetic justice, IMO.  
> 

a_svirn:
Much that I share you dislike of big and powerful bullying small and 
weak, I don't see why it couldn't qualify as "poetic justice" on 
occasion. Poetic justice means quite simply that the punishment fits 
the crime. Like the Serpent's punishment was "eat the dirt", because 
he tempted the woman to *eat* the forbidden fruit. It can be cruel 
alright, even though it sets a certain limit on punishment:  "You 
shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for 
hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for 
stripe [Exodus 21:23-25]" 
Of course the "eye for eye" principle is open to virtually limitless 
interrelations, so everybody seems to have their own version of 
what "poetic justice" really means.

 
> Alla:

> Again, I interpret " vicarious retribution" as retribution for 
> something bad which character did, but terms of the story will not 
> let the author punish the character directly.

a_svirn:
And how do you interpret the word *vicarious*?  

>Alla: 
> Let's look at Dudley. Hagrid indeed gave him a pig tail because he 
> was mad at Vernon ( quite deservingly, I'd say, but of course 
Hagrid 
> should have done it to Vernon), BUT I can also interpret Hagrid 
> doing to Dudley as carmic retribution for all those years 
of "Harry 
> hunting" Dudley and gang engaged in.

a_svirn:
I don't know about "karmic", but in this instance "vicarious" would 
be a perfectly right term. Because Hagrid used Dudley vicariously: 
as a substitute for Vernon. 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 19:23:53 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:23:53 -0000
Subject: Hermione's role (Was: Teaching Harry)
In-Reply-To: <20b8612691d2ce7aa46c28e8dd81604b@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <dlt6s9+agnj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143301

Barb Roberts wrote:
<snip> Harry won't be the one reading runes et al., it will be
others... we are talking Team!Harry.  It is likely that . . . with
Dumbledore gone, that LV will once again underestimate the oppostion.
I'm sure that LV believes that no one of significance will learn
of...much less destroy the Horcruxes. Also because magic always leaves
traces that are identifiable, that when LV senses the opposition, it
will be a little harder for him to figure out who it is exactly. 
Especially so, if LV continues to underestimates school children. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree that Harry will have to rely, perhaps more than ever, on
Hermione's remarkable memory of what she's read in books. Possibly
she's read something about the traces left by magical concealment that
will come in handy, and I've always suspected that she'll find a use
for her Ancient Runes course, whether it's to read the runes around
the edges of a Pensieve or to recognize Harry's scar as having the
shape of a rune (Eihwaz or Sowelo). But I expected a conversation
between Hermione and Luna about runes in relation to the scar in HBP
and didn't get it, so maybe I should accept defeat on that one.

But what about Arithmancy? What is it, exactly, and where might it
come in? (Okay, judging from a textbook title, it involves numerology,
the magical properties of numbers, but where does "grammatica" fit
in?) Anyone have any ideas what this course involves and how it will
prove useful in the Horcrux hunt? We already know (or think we know)
that there are seven Horcruxes. Would knowing *why* LV chose the
number seven help at all?

And what about poor Ron? Is he just going to be the loyal sidekick who
knows how to play chess (and Quidditch, if the Twins aren't around)?
I'm not by any means denigrating the virtues of courage and loyalty,
which Ron displays in abundance, but I'm wondering what particular
talents he can contribute to the search for Horcruxes and whatever
else Team!Harry has to do on the road to Mt. Doom, erm, the
destruction of Voldemort. (I wonder if the brain tentacles he was
attacked by in the DoM will give him some sort of insight that the
others don't have? That'll make Lupinlore happy, right, Lupinlore?--a
loose end from OoP picked up again and developed into something
significant.)

Carol, hoping that SSS has noticed the total absence of Snape from my
posts so far today ;-)






From redeyedwings at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 19:02:40 2005
From: redeyedwings at yahoo.com (redeyedwings)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:02:40 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk6at3+5k28@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt5kg+4rng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143302

lucianam73 wrote:
<large chunks snipped>
> > `I see,' said Dumbledore eventually, peering at Harry over the 
> > top of his half-moon spectacles .... `And you feel that you have
> > exerted your very best efforts in this matter, do you? That you 
> > have exercised all of your considerable ingenuity? That you have 
> > left no depth of cunning umplumbed in your quest to retrieve the 
> > memory?'
> > 
> > When was the last time I read about, or watched a movie about a 
> > wise and righteous mentor telling his young apprentice to leave 
> > `no depth of cunning umplumbed' to get something?  I can't 
> > remember! Yoda and Obi Wan-Kenobi never told Luke anything even 
> > remotely similar.

bboyminn:
> Maybe we have different definitions of cunning, but I'm pretty sure
> they all, indirectly, said exactly that. 
> 
> <snipped>
> Dumbledore is simply repeating various forms of 'Did you /really/
> try?'. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I guess we can't agree all the time.


ReW writes:
Nope, we can't, but I agree with Steve on this one. Especially about the "no depths of cunning," and Lucianam's contention that Obi-Wan and Yoda never said anything like this. Like a good leader, Dumbledore is imploring Harry to use all his resources and not offer up excuses when he fails at a task.

Besides, "left no depths of cunning," quote sounds to me a lot like Master Yoda's: "Do. Or do not. There is no 'try.'"

While I can appreciate Lucianam's view that we should look at Dumbledore's message with a critical eye, I think it's very important to note that his attitude HAS changed in the course of the last two books - and it had to: His world is at war. If that means that Harry should be applauded for vowing to fight to the death and "take as many with me as I can," or that he should use every trick up his sleeve to recover information that may be crucial to any hope of victory, I think he is justified in that stance, both plot-wise and morally.

my 0.02,
ReW










From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 19:48:24 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:48:24 -0000
Subject: Sorting out the Sorting Hat haha
In-Reply-To: <dlt167+sfpl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt8a8+sm1o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143303

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" <rh64643 at a...> 
wrote:
>
>  There has recently been some discussion of the sorting hat as a
> horcrux. I have to say that I see this as a distinct possibility.
> Further, I would bet that there is SOME connection between the hat 
and
> Voldemort. There are several good arguments against this theory.
> However, I believe that there is plenty of good canon evidence for 
the
> theory. First of all, the hat has been tinkered with by all 4
> founders. Keeping in mind Riddle's obsession with artifacts of the
> founders, I do not see how he could leave the sorting hat alone. 
There
> is also the fact that this is perhaps the most protected wizarding
> artifact in all of Britain. Voldemort wouldnt have to take any extra
> precautions with the hat. It is already in Dumbledore's office. I
> believe that even as a horcrux, the hat would still have to serve 
the
> purpose it was originally designed for. The magic of those 4 wizards
> is too strong for Voldemort to interfere with. Not that he would 
want
> the hat to quit serving it's purpose of dividing the magical
> population of Britain. One final thought . In C.O.S, Arthur makes a
> very profound statement that is Italicized by Rowling."Never trust
> anything that can think for itself (if you can't see where it keeps
> its brain.)" ()=italicized I think that this is a fairly 
hypocritical
> statement considering that everyone in that room puts faith in an
> object that fits this description. Why did J.K.Rowling include this
> statement and why did she italicize it if is not important. I belive
> she is making a subtle hint here about the sorting hat, which 
figures
> very strongly into this story. If anyone has any thoughts on this I
> would love to hear them.
>

n_longbottom01:

The evidence you present makes sense, and maybe the sorting hat will 
turn out to be a horcrux... but I just don't see how this squares 
with what we have seen of the hat so far.  

If the hat is being controlled or influenced by Voldemort, why is it 
among the things that come to Harry's aid as he battles the Riddle 
Diary Horcrux in the Chamber of Secrets?  Would one of Voldemorts 
Horcruxes aid in the destruction of another of his Horcruxes?  Also, 
after Voldemort returns, the sorting hat advises the school to stand 
united.  Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry that the Hat feels honor 
bound to give such warnings... I don't think the hat would tell the 
students to stand united if Voldemort's soul piece was influencing 
its behavior.

These words of wisdom do cast some doubt onto the sorting hat: "Never 
trust anything that can think for itself (if you can't see where it 
keeps its brain.)"  But, I don't think this good advice from Mr. 
Weasly means that there can't be a good magical object.  I take the 
advice to mean that an object like the sorting hat is only as 
trustworthy as it's creators, and since you can't be certain of who 
created a given magical object, it is a good idea to be wary of it.  
Supposidly we do know who the creators of the sorting hat, and what 
their intentions were when they made it.  So, unless the hat starts 
showing signs that it has been tampered with, I think it is ok to 
trust it.    

Instead of a Horcrux!Sorting Hat, I would rather see the Sorting Hat 
take on more significance on the side of the good guys.  I'd like to 
see Harry armed again with Gryffindor's sword, wearing the Sorting 
Hat, with Fawkes at his side.  Plus, the Sorting Hat might be able to 
offer some suggestions about what the other founder related Horcruxes 
might be.

--n_longbottom01






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov 21 19:55:04 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:55:04 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt47v+q6bp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlt8mo+lgj9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143304

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hekatesheadband" <sophiapriskilla at y...> 
wrote:

> I don't know what trauma even a DDM!Snape might have been experiencing
> at the moment, and more to the point, I don't care. He's obviously
> aware of the whole situation - see his responses to it, and to Harry.
> Harry has just gone through plenty of trauma on his own (surely a
> DDM!Harry in the cave is analogous to a DDM!Snape on the tower? Though
> I don't buy the latter...). He's aware of Fang's fear and agony (he's
> conflated with the narrator in this scene), and when Snape runs, Harry
> chooses to let him run so that he can save Fang, rather than trying to
> pursue him and leaving Fang to die. 
> 
> Snape could have saved Fang at any point at no cost to himself (do you
> think Voldemort would compromise himself by killing his most useful
> operatives for being sentimental about dogs? If he were that dim he'd
> never have learnt to spell "horcrux," much less make six of the
> things). He never even tries - a simple "Accio Fang" would have
> sufficed. Harry does the right thing - what any human with the
> smallest scrap of decency anywhere would do - and saves Fang
> immediately (i.e., as soon as he has his wand and can use it). Snape
> was letting him burn alive.

Pippin:
Um, where are you getting all this? Canon is very clear about what happened.
Snape  fled because Buckbeak chased him off. Then --
" Harry struggled to his feet, hoping to give chase again, but even as his 
fingers fumbled in the grass, discarding twigs, he knew it would be too
late, and sure enough, by the time he had located his wand, he turned
only to see the hippogriff circling the gates. Snape had managed to
Disapparate just beyond the school's boundaries."

Harry is thinking only of chasing Snape, not rescuing Fang, and in fact
it is Hagrid who rescued the dog, not Harry.  

If Snape deserves karmic punishment for endangering Harry with his
sarcasm and malice, even if Harry didn't come to harm through them, 
then shouldn't Lupin and his pals suffer karmic punishment also for 
endangering the innocent villagers of Hogsmead? The Marauders can't be 
excused for their youth if the outings lasted into their seventh year when 
they were adults. 

Pippin






From ornawn at 013.net  Mon Nov 21 20:10:28 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:10:28 -0000
Subject: Teaching Harry
Message-ID: <dlt9jk+dqqq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143305

>Steve/bboyminn
> Harry's need is far and away above the needs of others, yet in many
>areas, he is far below others in his level of knowledge.

>I still say that if Harry doesn't start training hard in the next 
book
>then all logic and reason have gone out the window.


Orna: 
I agree with you that Harry's dueling skills are nowhere up to a 
match to Voldermort, as far as his spells are concerned. However, I 
don't think he'll start training in book 7. I mean, the whole point 
about Voldermort is that he is an exceptional wizard with magic 
skills, advanced beyond most wizards. Even as a child he starts 
using magic consciously, without knowing what it is.

Harry's power OTOH lies in his love ? so we are told, or in Snape's 
language ? receiving help from talented friends. I agree with you, 
that in no encounter Harry could have survived without help from 
friends (living or dead), who come to his aid and rescue. That's 
power in a way - being able to draw friends willfully to help him ? 
even if it involves endangering their lives. It has to do with love. 
Nobody could imagine anybody coming to Voldermort's aid, just 
because of love. Even his most insanely devoted servants (Bella, 
Crouch jr.) never fail to mention that they are going to be honored 
and rewarded ? beyond any other DE. That's also, why although the DE 
fight together, there is never love between them. 
Without coercion, torturing, threats, and promises of rewards or 
power-rewards nobody would help him for a second. When Voldermort 
holds his speech in GoF, he says, that he was sure some devoted DE 
would look for him. I think that there lie the seeds for his 
downfall ? even if he doesn't recognize it ? he is coming to spell 
out the limits of his power. He doesn't understand what he is 
saying, but it is "spelled out", and perhaps some recognition of 
this, when his death is near will mark this issue of Love-power vs. 
Power-Power.

Another characteristic of Harry IMO: Harry has some sort of unusual 
presence of mind and heart in crucial moments, which allows him to 
be focused on a crucial feature, which saves him. I mean his being 
able to recover from the shock of the connection in GoF, and 
understand that the crucial thing is to force the beads towards 
Voldermort. Voldermort seems to lack this resolution, and my guess 
is, that he lacks it because being connected is an experience which 
is uncanny for him, so he sort of looses some power. Just like when 
possessing Harry in OotP, he can't stand feeling the love inside 
him, and in PS he is burnt by Harry's skin. I think that in all 
those instances, a wizard as powerful as Voldermort should be able 
to have some spell ready to deal with it, but at the crucial moment ?
 he is frightened, shocked, flies or forgets some of his knowledge 
(I mean his forgetting, that killing Lily might protect Harry). 
I would like to add to this, that Voldermort is deep inside himself 
afraid of darkness, death, and human feelings. 
So Harry, whose love and being loved enables him to be less in panic 
in moments like this, has got his chance ? of course with a little 
help from his friends. 

So I don't think we have to imagine Harry learning complex skills 
and spells ? he never was exceptionally good at them, as a matter of 
fact, even if he got an outstanding owl in DADA. 

All this goes along with a feeling I have that the farther the books 
get along, human virtues seem to get more magical power than hocus-
pocus. (Apparation, DD's intuitive exploring in the cave, 
occlumency, Snape's stopping spells just by shouting "NO" , just to 
mention a few)

Orna

P.S. Having said all that - I would love some new spells being 
taught on book 7.







From xmilesx at gmx.de  Mon Nov 21 20:31:11 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:31:11 +0100
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
References: <dlt5kg+4rng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a001c5eeda$86ded980$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143307

redeyedwings wrote:
> Besides, "left no depths of cunning," quote sounds to me a lot like
> Master Yoda's: "Do. Or do not. There is no 'try.'"

Miles:
It sounds to me like a quote of the Sorting Hat:

"Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means
To achieve their ends." (Book 1)

and

"For instance, Slytherin
Took only pure-blood wizards
Of great cunning just like him." (Book 5)

"Cunning" is a characteristic of Slytherin and his House. The Sorting Hat
considered to put Harry into Slytherin. Voldemort, a Slytherin, "marked him
as his equal". And Dumbledore himself tends to "the end justifies the
means", doesn't he - thinking of Marietta in his office after the revealing
of the DA at OotP?
So, this is the old antagonism ethics of conscience vs. ethics of
responsibility - and this will be a major topic of the fights in book 7.

Miles







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 21:44:53 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:44:53 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
Message-ID: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143308

Here we go. Thank you Petra, Svetlana ( hoping you joined the list 
finally :-)), SSSusan and Sherry Gomes for your help.

Alla.

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
4,Horace Slughorn.


Harry and Dumbledore walk towards the end of Privet Drive and 
Dumbledore is preparing to apparate, while telling Harry to hold on 
to his uninjured hand very tightly, since Harry has not passed his 
Apparition test yet .

They apparate to what appears to be the deserted village square. 
Dumbledore leads the way to the point of their destination, of which 
Harry is still unaware. While they walk Albus asks Harry whether his 
scar had been hurting at all this time. Harry answers in the 
negative and says he was wondering about it since Voldemort was 
getting more powerful. According to the Headmaster, Voldemort 
finally realized how dangerous it is that Harry has access to his 
thoughts and feelings and now employs Occlumency against him.
Dumbledore also tells Harry the name of the place to which they have 
apparated. He calls it "the charming village of Budleigh Babberton". 
Albus also explains the reason why he and Harry came to this 
village, which is that they are again one member of staff short and 
they are there to persuade an old colleague of his to come out of 
retirement. Harry wonders how he could help with that and Dumbledore 
answers vaguely that "we'll find a use for you."

While Albus and Harry walk up the narrow street with houses, where 
all windows are dark, Harry wonders why they could not just apparate 
to Albus colleague's house. Dumbledore replies that it would have 
been rude; because courtesy dictates to allow the fellow wizard the 
opportunity to deny them entry and most wizard buildings are 
protected from unwanted Apparators anyway.


During their walk Dumbledore also confirms Harry's inquiry about 
Fudge being sacked and that he has been replaced with Rufus 
Scrimgeor, who used to be the Head of the Auror office.  Harry asks 
for Dumbledore's opinion about whether the new minister is "good" 
and Dumbledore answers that he is "able" and has "more decisive and 
forceful personality" than Fudge.  Dumbledore also agrees with Harry 
that Amelia Bones' death is a terrible loss.

Harry asks Dumbledore about his injured hand, but Albus answers 
that  he has no time to explain it now, because it is a thrilling 
tale and he wants to do it justice.

Harry seems to be satisfied with the answer. While Harry and Albus 
walk they also briefly discuss the security pamphlets, which the 
Ministry of Magic distributed to the general population, and 
Dumbledore appears to make fun of them. Harry asks about Inferi, 
which were mentioned in the pamphlet and Dumbledore explains what 
they are. "Dead bodies that have been bewitched to do a Dark 
wizard's bidding."

Finally they come to the point of their destination. It is a small 
stone house set in its own garden. When they reach the front gate, 
the Headmaster "stops dead" and Harry walks into him. They see that 
the front door is hanging off its hinges. Albus orders Harry to take 
his wand out and follow him. When they enter the house, they see 
a "scene of total devastation". Dumbledore thinks that something 
horrible has happened there, then looks around again, followed by 
Harry. Harry thinks that there was a fight and Headmaster's 
colleague was dragged off some place, but Albus disagrees 
while "peering behind an overstuffed armchair lying on its side."

Albus thinks that the person they are looking for is still here 
somewhere and a moment later it turns out that he is correct. 
Dumbledore plunges the tip of his wand into the seat of the 
armchair, which yells "Ouch." Albus greets an "enormously fat, bald, 
old man", which appears instead of an armchair with "Good evening 
Horace."

Horace wonders what gave away his charade and Dumbledore explains 
that there was no Dark Mark set over the house.

Dumbledore and Horace clean up the room together. After they do so, 
Albus wonders what kind of blood Horace put on the walls and Horace 
replies that it was a dragon blood and laments that it was his last 
bottle, since it is so expensive now.

When Horace finally notices Harry and his scar, he appears to be 
surprised and shocked. At that moment Dumbledore finally proceeds 
with formal introductions. He introduces Harry to Horace as Harry 
Potter and we learn that Horace`s last name is Slughorn. It seems 
that Horace connects the dots right away and tells Albus that the 
answer to his request is no.

Albus wonders if they could have a drink and Slughorn reluctantly 
agrees to one drink. They sit down to the table in silence. Albus 
asks Horace how he has been and Horace complains about his 
illnesses. Dumbledore compliments Mr. Slughorn on preparing his 
charade on such short notice, since he could not have had more than 
three minutes' notice that intruders were coming and Slughorn 
proudly replies that he had only two minutes' notice, but then 
begins to complain about his old age. Albus replies that Horace is 
not as old as he is. Horace remarks that maybe Albus should think 
about retirement too.

Slughorn notices Dumbledore's injured hand and comments, "Reactions 
not what they were, I see." Dumbledore agrees that he is slower than 
he was, but shrugs and spreads his hands wide, which Harry 
interprets as his headmaster's way of indicating that age had its 
compensations. Harry also notices a gold ring on Dumbledore's 
uninjured hand.

Dumbledore wonders whom Slughorn set all those precautions against ? 
Death Eaters or him. Dumbledore also expresses doubt that the DEs 
did not come to recruit Slughorn yet. Horace explains that he did 
not give them a chance, that during the last year he was running 
from them. Dumbledore wonders whether such an existence would not be 
tiring for Horace and maybe if he were to return to Hogwarts


Slughorn again answers in the negative and tells Dumbledore that he 
has heard some rumors about Umbridge and that he does not like how 
Dumbledore treats his teachers if those rumors are true. Albus is 
sure that Horace would not have gone to the centaurs in the forest 
and surely would have known better than to call centaurs "filthy 
half-breeds".  Slughorn calls Umbridge an "idiotic woman" and at 
this point Harry agrees with him.

At this point Albus excuses himself to search for the bathroom.

Harry and Horace Slughorn are alone in the room at this point. 
Slughorn tells Harry that he looks like his father, but has his 
mother's eyes, which Harry finds a bit wearing after being told it 
so many times.

Slughorn also tells Harry that his mother was one of his favorite 
students. Horace speaks very highly of Lily. Turns out that he was 
the Head of Slytherin House while he was teaching. Slughorn 
reminisces about Sirius Black and tells Harry that he would have 
loved to have had Sirius in Slytherin House, because even though he 
got his brother Regulus, he would have loved a set.  At this point 
Slughorn is being compared to enthusiastic collector who had been 
outbid at auction.

 Slughorn again compliments Lily, *even though* she was muggle-born. 
Harry remarks that one of his best friends is muggle-born and she is 
one of the best students at Hogwarts.  Slughorn reassures Harry that 
he is not prejudiced and points to the pictures of his famous 
students who all keep in touch with him and do little favors when 
Horace asks them to (like getting Quidditch tickets)

Harry wonders how all those people are able to find Horace if he has 
been on the run. Turns out that the last year he is not in touch 
with anybody.

Mr. Slughorn tries to explain to Harry that for him to join 
Hogwarts's facility at this point would be to declare his allegiance 
to the Order of Phoenix and he does not fancy the mortality rate. 
Harry replies that not all teachers are members and Slughorn does 
not have to join in order to teach. Harry also tells Horace that the 
teaching staff is safer than most people, with Dumbledore as 
Headmaster, and Slughorn reluctantly agrees with his reasoning.

Dumbledore finally comes back from his trip to the bathroom and says 
that he is ready to leave because he knows a lost cause when he sees 
one. Before Dumbledore and Harry leave, Slughorn quickly agrees to 
take a teaching job at Hogwarts. While Albus and Harry walk back to 
their apparition point, the Headmaster wonders whether Harry liked 
Horace and Harry is not sure whether he did. 
Dumbledore tells Harry about a club which Slughorn had while he was 
teaching, where he invited his favorites. Albus warns Harry that 
Horace will try to collect him. When they are back to the apparition 
point, Harry is again told to grasp Dumbledore's arm and they 
apparate, as it turns out, to the Burrow, which makes Harry happy.

Dumbledore wants to talk to Harry more in private before they part 
the ways, and he leads him to the Weasleys' old outhouse, where 
broomsticks are kept. Albus congratulates Harry on how well he is 
coping with Sirius' death and Harry tells about how hard it is to 
imagine that Sirius will not write to him anymore, but that he also 
realizes that Sirius would not have wanted for him to shut himself 
up. Harry proclaims that if he were to be killed next, he would take 
with him as many DE as he could.

Dumbledore touches upon the prophecy by pointing out to Harry that 
there were not so much leaks in the Daily Prophet about the 
prophecy. Albus asks Harry whether he has told anybody about the 
prophecy, and when Harry's answers no, Albus urges him to tell Ron 
and Hermione.

Another piece of news that Dumbledore informs Harry about during 
this conversation is that he will be giving Harry private lessons 
this year. Nevertheless, Dumbledore does not give Harry a straight 
answer as to what he will be teaching to him. Dumbledore also 
confirms that Harry won't be taking Occlumency with Professor Snape, 
but when Harry assumes that he won't see much Snape this year, he 
urges Harry "not to count his OWLS before they  are delivered."

Before they part Dumbledore tells Harry to keep his invisibility 
cloak with him at all times and not to get into trouble while he is 
staying with the Weasleys, because "it would be poor repayment if 
you risked your neck while staying with them."
Harry agrees.


QUESTIONS.

1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
attacked tonight."
Harry: "Why not, sir?"
"You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
 Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
 "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 

Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that Harry 
had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for 
Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in 
order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In other 
words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of the connection during 
OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was not? How does Dumbledore 
know that Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against Harry?

3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to set 
the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he muttered. "Knew 
there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had time anyway" 
I realize that I am missing something obvious here, but it bugs me 
nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no 
connections with Death Eaters at all? I am guessing that since 
Winky  was accused of doing so in GoF, the answer is probably yes, 
but the suggestion  that a house elf had done it was met with such 
disbelief that maybe not  anybody could do it? What do you think?

4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how 
does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
Budleigh Babberton?  

5. When I was preparing the questions for this chapter discussion, I 
could not shake the feeling that I am having Mark Evans de ja vu. 
Why? Because I started seeing symbolism where JKR probably had no 
intention to write anything symbolic. Nevertheless, when Albus asks 
Slughorn whether he needs his assistance in cleaning up and Slughorn 
answers positively, I for some reason saw the possible foreshadowing 
of Gryffindor and Slytherin cooperation. Am I seeing things? 
 "They stood back to back, the tall thin wizard and the short round 
one, and waved 
their wands in one identical sweeping motion."

6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when 
he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still 
be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already 
being spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you 
think it may play important role in the ending? Do you think it 
already played the important role in the beginning, but we may not 
know about it yet?
What do you think?


7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a year", how 
does he know about Dumbledore's injury? Is there any significance 
that he describes the reason for the injury basically the same way 
Snape describes it to Bella in "Spinner's end"?

Horace's words are, "Reactions not what they were, I see." 

Snape, in the relevant part of conversation, says basically the same 
thing: "He has since sustained a serious injury because his 
reactions are slower than they once were." ? p.31. (US.ed).

8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned about 
Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?


9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean, 
particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
anything about him on the HPFGU. 

10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents even 
in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here Harry 
meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother 
very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about 
Lily. What do you think about it?


NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database








From kmalone1127 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 20:52:20 2005
From: kmalone1127 at yahoo.com (kmalone1127)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:52:20 -0000
Subject: Lucious Malfoy/ Voldemort.
In-Reply-To: <dlt8se+usra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltc24+hg4i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143309

I just reread CoS and noticed a interesting parallel.  I will give
the quotes.  In HBP when DD showed Harry the memory of Tom coming back to ask for the job, getting denied and his hand twitching:
 
"For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless
warning; He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his
pocket and his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had
turned away, the door was closing, and he was gone." Am. hardback Ed.
pg 446.

This is in Mcgonagall's office(I think) at the end of CoS, when
Lucious Malfoy had confronted DD and DD calmly revealed Malfoy's plot
to discredit Mr. Weasly:
 
"Lucius Malfoy stood there for a moment, and Harry disticly saw his right hand twitch as though he was longing to reach for his wand.Instead, he turned to his house-elf." Am. paperback Ed. pg 337.
Now, I'm not saying that there is anything to this, but I thougt I
would point it out as I find the parallel interesting.


kmalone1127










From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Mon Nov 21 22:48:31 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:48:31 -0000
Subject: Voldemorts knowledge
Message-ID: <dltirv+obhm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143310

 I was recently re-reading C.O.S and something stood out to me. When
Riddle is watching Harry die, he does nothing when Fawkes comes to
Harry and begins to cry. It is not until Harry begins to get better
that Voldemort tries to get the bird away. Then Riddle admits that he
had forgotten about a Phoenix's healing powers. When you combine this
with the fact that Voldemort had forgotten about the power of a love
sacrifice to protect, it makes a strong point. Voldemort seems to have
a very sub standard knowledge of the good side of magic. He doesn't
understand the magical properties of Love or any healing substances.
He is not in balance. He knows only destruction and hate. Even though
Harry is no where near as learned as Voldemort, he has a much more
balanced knowledge. He is immersed in the knowledge of healing spells
and useful creatures and positive charms. However, he is also taught
about Dark magic in D.A.D.A. Why did Voldemort think he could simply
forget all this knowledge. If he had simply remebered these arts as
well, he would not be worrying about Harry anymore. I think this shows
that once somone dedicates their lives to evil, they lose touch with
any good element of life. This is Volemorts main weakness in my opinion. 
truthbeauty1






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 23:40:21 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:40:21 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt8mo+lgj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltlt5+jj8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143311

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

<snip>

> If Snape deserves karmic punishment for endangering Harry with his
> sarcasm and malice, even if Harry didn't come to harm through 
> them, then shouldn't Lupin and his pals suffer karmic punishment 
> also for endangering the innocent villagers of Hogsmead? The 
> Marauders can't be excused for their youth if the outings lasted 
> into their seventh year when they were adults. 

Some have offered the idea that they have: James is dead, Sirius is 
dead (but in a different way), Peter is a subservient creature with 
an indeterminate role to play, Lupin has spent years in poverty and 
alone in emotional deprivation.

Our speculations about what Snape has suffered are, in contrast, 
utterly speculative (redundant, but true).  It's an open question 
whether he's spent a miserable 15 (or whatever it is) years (poor, 
poor baby) having to teach at Hogwarts; he did get off light, thanks 
to Dumbledore, on the whole DE and Azkaban front.  We speculate that 
he's miserable having lost everything at the end of HBP, but that 
does depend on one speculation about his interests and ends.  And 
with the revelations about Snape's parentage, the whole 'poor Snape 
abused by his father/family/whatever' scenario has started to sprout 
at least a few holes.  Also relevant is that the Snape under 
question is in his mid-30's, not a teenager of 15-18.

There's also the issue that the Marauders in Hogsmeade has never 
been shown to have any story-relevant consequences (at least yet): 
no one coming forward to proclaim that it was a free Lupin who bit 
him, no covered-up accidental deaths, nada.  We can speculate, but 
it has not yet made the category of text-extant.  In contrast, we've 
seen what Snape's behavior has sown; even if we argue about the 
extent of its affects (I still argue for OotP as being an 
illustration of what daily strife can sow), it's eminently relevant 
to the main thread of the story.

So the two situations aren't particularly comparable; it's the 
literary question of what exists in the text and what's brushed over 
and implied that seems most relevant.

-Nora hops on for a short time during break...mmm...vacation...






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 23:50:27 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:50:27 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt8mo+lgj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltmg3+opd9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143312

> Pippin:
> Um, where are you getting all this? Canon is very clear about what 
happened.
> Snape  fled because Buckbeak chased him off. Then --
> " Harry struggled to his feet, hoping to give chase again, but 
even as his 
> fingers fumbled in the grass, discarding twigs, he knew it would 
be too
> late, and sure enough, by the time he had located his wand, he 
turned
> only to see the hippogriff circling the gates. Snape had managed to
> Disapparate just beyond the school's boundaries."
> 
> Harry is thinking only of chasing Snape, not rescuing Fang, and in 
fact
> it is Hagrid who rescued the dog, not Harry.  


Alla:

I am not sure I agree with your conclusion, Pippin. I mean, yes, 
Hagrid saved Fang, but the continuation of the quote IMO that Harry 
was at least thinking of rescuing Fang and probably Hagrid too.

"Hagrid," muttered Harry, still dazed, looking around. "HAGRID?"
He stumbled toward the burning house as an enormous figure emerged 
from out the flames carrying Fang on his back. With the cry of 
thankfullness, Harry sank to his knees; he was shaking in every 
limb, his body ached all over, and his breath came in painful stabs.

"Yeh all righ', Harry? Yeh all righ'? Speak ter me, Harry..."
Hagrid's huge, hairy face was swimming above Harry, blocking out the 
stars. Harry could smell burnt wood and dog's hair; he put out a 
hand and felt Fang's reassuringly warm and alive body quivering 
beside him.

"I'm all right," panted Harry, "Are you?" - p.605.


So, Harry IS approaching the burning house,even if he does it after 
Snape fled. Harry is describing Fang's body as "reassuringly warm 
and alive", which tells me that he paid attention to Fang being in 
danger and happy that he is alive.



Pippin: 
> If Snape deserves karmic punishment for endangering Harry with his
> sarcasm and malice, even if Harry didn't come to harm through 
them, 
> then shouldn't Lupin and his pals suffer karmic punishment also 
for 
> endangering the innocent villagers of Hogsmead? The Marauders 
can't be 
> excused for their youth if the outings lasted into their seventh 
year when 
> they were adults. 


Alla:

Um, Marauders could be excused if JKR agrees with me that their 
actions do not deserve punishment in the first place, you know. :-)
I mean their intentions, not the executions of those intentions.

But I think they ARE being punished karmically, I am just not quite 
sure for which actions yet.

For example - surely Sirius going to Azkaban is a perfect example of 
karmic punishment, no?

As you know, I am not buying that only Marauders bullied Snape in 
scholl and he did nothing to them, BUT they did bully Snape and if 
at the end we will indeed learn that Snape was innocent all the time 
and Marauders were the guilty parties all the time, then I think 
Sirius was punished karmically for that.

Same with Remus - hardly able to find a paying job seems like a VERY 
harsh punishment to me.

JMO,

Alla







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 21 23:57:07 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:57:07 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltmsj+a8kf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143313

<snip Alla's thorough summary>
I can't believe I'm the first person to answer the questions. It's a
bit daunting, but here goes:
 
> 1. Consider the following quote from this chapter: Dumbledore:
"However, I do not think you need worry about being attacked tonight."
Harry: "Why not, sir?"
"You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
"I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 
> 
> Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

Carol:
Absolutely. It's clear that they are deliberately parallel, set up so
that the reader will notice the second reference, remember the first,
and understand immediately that Dumbledore and Harry have traded
places, with Harry as the powerful "adult" and dumbledore as the
helpless "child." It's unnerving to the reader and to Harry to have
Dumbledore dependent on him in "The Cave"; it's always been the other
way around. (Even the least perceptive reader must realize at that
point that Harry is about to lose his mentor; the symbolic passing of
the mantle is all too clear.) In "Horace Slughorn," however, the
relationship is still deceptively normal: Dumbledore is in charge;
he's the one with the answers; he's the one who can Apparate. The only
sign that things are changing is the mysterious blackened hand, which
DD so maddeningly refuses to explain. But Harry Apparates (with help)
twice in this chapter, providing a bit of an initiation into the adult
world and foreshadowing chapter 27, when he will perform Side-Along
Apparition (illegally) with the dying Dumbledore in tow.
> 

> 2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been enjoying,"
does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that Harry had access
to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for Voldemort to
know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in order for his
plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In other words, I thought
that Voldemort was aware of the connection during OOP. Are we supposed
to think that he was not? How does Dumbledore know that Voldemort is
now employing Occlumency against Harry?

Carol:
Interesting question. I haven't read OoP in awhile and I can't
remember exactly when LV first realized that Harry was vicariously
experiencing his most vivid emotions, actually living them as if he
were Voldemort (was it the snake dream that alerted him?). But
certainly he knows about it before the end of OoP and plots with the
Malfoys and Kreacher to trap Harry into going to the MoM through a
false vision. But he didn't want a two-way connection--Harry accessing
his thoughts at any time, either deliberately or arbitrarily. I think
that Dumbledore simply knows how "Tom's" mind works and deduces
correctly that when the scar connection not only fails to accomplish
LV's objective but actually places him in danger of having his secrets
exposed (revealed by Harry to Dumbledore), LV's next move will
probably be to close the connection through Occlumency.
> 
> 3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to set
the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he muttered. "Knew
there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had time anyway" I
realize that I am missing something obvious here, but it bugs me
nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no
connections with Death Eaters at all? I am guessing that since Winky 
was accused of doing so in GoF, the answer is probably yes, but the
suggestion  that a house elf had done it was met with such disbelief
that maybe not anybody could do it? What do you think?

Carol:
I wondered the same thing. Winky "is not knowing how to do it" because
she doesn't know the spell and has never used a wand, but also surely
she'd have to produce a mental image of the Dark Mark and *want* to
cast it, which seems inconceivable. The very idea seems to terrify
her. But Slughorn is a Wizard, and seemingly a pretty powerful one
since he's a furnituremorphagus (sorry--I don't know the Latin term
for furniture!). Quite possibly he knows the spell although, despite
being the former head of Slytherin, he doesn't seem to knowingly
associate with Death Eaters. Still, the idea that he could and would
cast a spell exclusively associated with Death Eaters--their master's
mark, the sign that a murder has been committed--makes me leery of
Slughorn. Is he the jovial old man he seems, slightly prejudiced
against Muggleborns and certainly selfish and manipulitive but
otherwise a "good guy"? I don't know, Alla, but it bugs me, too.
> 

> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how
does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of
Budleigh Babberton?

Carol:
Good question! Maybe the strange instruments in his office? It's clear
that he didn't announce his visit and yet Slughorn knows what he
wants, so maybe they've been communicating by owl, but DD wouldn't
need to know his address to send a letter that way. I don't think he
has the false memory yet, either. Maybe someone has been spying on
Slughorn? Can a Disapparating person be followed by someone who
doesn't know his intended destination?
> 

> 5. When I was preparing the questions for this chapter discussion, I
could not shake the feeling that I am having Mark Evans de ja vu. Why?
Because I started seeing symbolism where JKR probably had no intention
to write anything symbolic. Nevertheless, when Albus asks Slughorn
whether he needs his assistance in cleaning up and Slughorn answers
positively, I for some reason saw the possible foreshadowing of
Gryffindor and Slytherin cooperation. Am I seeing things?  "They stood
back to back, the tall thin wizard and the short round one, and waved 
> their wands in one identical sweeping motion."

Carol:
I don't know. I like the thought, but it's clear that they won't be
working together in person in HBP. And IMO, we've been seeing
Gryffindor/Slytherin cooperation through six books in the form of
Dumbledore and Snape.
> 
> 6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when
he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still be
reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already being
spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you think it
may play important role in the ending? Do you think it already played
the important role in the beginning, but we may not know about it yet?
What do you think?

Carol:
Dusty dragon's blood play a role? I don't know. So far we've been
deprived of knowing the twelve uses of dragon's blood and it would be
nice to learn at least one of them in Book 7, so it's possible that
we'll see that bottle again. (Harry needs dragon's blood to uncurse a
Horcrux? Seems improbable.) But that scene bothered me for two
reasons. DD is an expert on the uses of dragon's blood so he should
have recognized it immediately (maybe he did but didn't speak; all the
mentions is the absence of the Dark Mark). Also, when Harry breaks the
bowl of murtlap essence in OoP he repairs the bowl but the narrator
says something like "there was no putting the murtlap essence back in
the bowl." The best they can do is Evanesco it to clean up the mess.
So it seems odd that splattered blood of any variety can be put back
in its vial. A Flint, maybe.
> 
> 
> 7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a year", how
does he know about Dumbledore's injury? Is there any significance that
he describes the reason for the injury basically the same way Snape
describes it to Bella in "Spinner's end"?
> 
> Horace's words are, "Reactions not what they were, I see."
 
> Snape, in the relevant part of conversation, says basically the same
thing: "He has since sustained a serious injury because his 
> reactions are slower than they once were." ? p.31. (US.ed).

Carol:
I don't think he knows any more about the injury than Harry does; he
sees it and arrives at the conclusion that Dumbledore is slower than
he used to be. I think it's only coincidence that his assumption is
identical to the explanation that Snape and Dumbledore have previously
agreed on (neither wants to say that Dumbledore went after a Horcrux
and Snape cured him of its curse). Dumbledore is a very old man, over
150, and the slowed reflexes provide a partially true explanation that
isn't the real explanation. So when Slughorn, who is also getting old,
comes up with the same explanation on his own, Dumbledore doesn't
correct him. In fact, he uses it himself in explaining it the Death
Eaters on the tower. It's just one example of many where Snape and
Dumbledore use the partial truth tactic. In this case, I'm pretty sure
that they agreed upon a tale.
> 

> 
> 8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned about
Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

Carol:
I don't think so. I think he takes Dumbledore's reticence as a sign
that he doesn't want to talk about it. Or possibly there's a bit of
mutual understanding or even Legilimency going on and Slughorn, who
recognizes the ring, puts two and two together Snape-fashion and
realizes that the now-cracked ring is a former Horcrux and the source
of the injury.
> 
> 
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean,
particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read
anything about him on the HPFGU.

Carol:
I was suspicious of him because of the Dark Mark comment, but I didn't
instantly abhor him as I did with Umbridge. At this point, of course,
I thought he was the new DADA teacher and would be out the door at the
end of the book. (Why didn't you write it that way, JKR?) Basically,
he seemed like just another somewhat interesting but expendable
character. 
> 
> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents even
in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here Harry
meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother very
much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about Lily. What
do you think about it?

Carol:
Harry doesn't like the way Slughorn casually talked about Sirius
despite knowing that he was dead (did he also know that he was a
member of the OoP? Was that in the papers?) or his attitude toward
Muggleborns, so I can see why he wouldn't be inclined to ask this
particular man about his mother. I think when he's ready, he'll ask
the only man who was really close to both James and Lily, Remus Lupin.
(And he'd better do it in Book 7 because that's the last chance we've
got to find this stuff out!)


Thanks for the interesting questions, Alla. I have one more that you
didn't ask: Does anyone besides me think that the overstuffed chair
into which Dumbledore poked his wand showed signs of magical
concealment? If not, how would he know that Horace had transfigured
himself into *that* particular chair? And if so, is this little
incident a foreshadowing of the magical concealment motif (the ring
and the locket) later in the book?

Carol







From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 00:27:55 2005
From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:27:55 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt8mo+lgj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltomb+qjtm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143314

> Pippin:
> Um, where are you getting all this? Canon is very clear about what
happened.
> Snape  fled because Buckbeak chased him off.

I'm getting it from pages 562-564, Raincoast edition (don't know the
American page numbers, sorry). Snape stood there taunting Harry for
however long - doesn't much matter, at least from my perspective. He
was quite aware of his surroundings, and he snarled at Harry and did
nothing to help Fang. As for Harry: he didn't have his wand and Snape
was preventing him from moving, thus from helping the dog. He does
note in passing an urge to "give [Snape] chase," but nonetheless he
turns immediately toward the hut, wasting no time in a useless effort
despite the circumstances. Yes, Hagrid has beat him to the task.
Nobody was blocking him.

Pippin: > If Snape deserves karmic punishment for endangering Harry
with his
> sarcasm and malice, even if Harry didn't come to harm through them, 
> then shouldn't Lupin and his pals suffer karmic punishment also for 
> endangering the innocent villagers of Hogsmead? The Marauders can't be 
> excused for their youth if the outings lasted into their seventh
year when 
> they were adults. 
> 

Snape deserves punishment for leaving an innocent, sentient animal to
burn alive for the sake of his petty grudge. The taunting is
immaterial. This goes no matter what spin we put on the Marauders'
behaviour. My take is that they, in their teenage recklessness and
rashness, honestly failed to consider that running around at night
when people were in bed, with Remus in their care, was as dangerous as
it was. (Snape can't claim adolescent stupidity for trying to poison
Trevor - even if Neville shouldn't have had him in class, it wasn't
the toad's fault.) And when James realised what a mistake that was, he
risked his life to right it. 

If you interpret them as malicious, however: James died a premature,
violent death knowing that his beloved wife and infant son would
probably be killed within minutes. Sirius spent twelve years in
Azkaban with the dementors for a crime he didn't commit, then another
year locked inside a madhouse of another kind, and was then murdered
by his own kinswoman. Remus has spent his post-Hogwarts existence as
an impoverished, chronically ill, pariah. Peter, I'd agree, has it
coming, for reasons that need no reiteration.

So my karmic view of Snape: redcaps and dementors have to eat something.

JMO,
hekatesheadband

Because the sorting hat is really Bono.






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Tue Nov 22 00:35:23 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:35:23 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <00a001c5eeda$86ded980$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dltp4b+c0j1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143315

> redeyedwings wrote:
> > Besides, "left no depths of cunning," quote sounds to me a lot 
like
> > Master Yoda's: "Do. Or do not. There is no 'try.'"
> 
> Miles:
> It sounds to me like a quote of the Sorting Hat:
> 
<quotes snipped>
 
> "Cunning" is a characteristic of Slytherin and his House. The 
Sorting Hat
> considered to put Harry into Slytherin. Voldemort, a 
Slytherin, "marked him
> as his equal". And Dumbledore himself tends to "the end justifies 
the
> means", doesn't he - thinking of Marietta in his office after the 
revealing
> of the DA at OotP?
> So, this is the old antagonism ethics of conscience vs. ethics of
> responsibility - and this will be a major topic of the fights in 
book 7.
> 
> Miles
>

Lucianam:
I see a lot of people find DD's attittude justifiable, and Harry's 
Death Eaters speech okay, considering the Wizarding World is at war. 
I may find it justifiable in very specific situations (which were 
not written), but not okay, or admirable.

I can understand I'm a minority in this, but I do have a problem 
with the new Harry and Dumbledore. Why so eager to battle, why so 
ready to drop limits? It seems, at least to me, a lot different from 
the ethical messages the earlier books delivered. 

I'm confused, did JKR always intend her 'life is 
valuable', 'compassion is important' and similar messages to 
eventually be readdressed in a new light, when the Second War came? 
By new light I mean Harry and Dumbledore saying those concepts are 
relative, that as soldiers they're allowed to take life? If that's 
the case, I have to say JKR has done a very poor job in HBP, IMO. 
She wrote very short scenes and dialogue, left no room for other 
characters' opinions, showed no specific situation at all. 

I've read some posts in which people said Harry was simply saying 
that if he found himself attacked by Death Eaters and was going to 
die, he'd try to kill as many DEs as he could as he went down. That 
is a specific situation, an action situation, and I think would work 
much better in description mode, as it happened (like the MoM battle 
or the Hogwarts invasion), than as some sort of vengeance statement. 
I suppose it didn't sound like that to a lot of people, though.

I'm curious about how the 'War attittude' will be handled in B7. I 
thought HP was more of a idealistic tale, something with a goody-
goody side to it, and if Harry's and Dumbledore's developments in 
HBP are not flints or red herrings or mistakes on JKR's part, well, 
too bad for me! I've already read Narnia and LotR, I really really 
am not in the mood for another Holy War-Shiny Armor Guy saga. I had 
enough ork squashing in The Two Towers, thanks - I'd rather have my 
Death Eaters sent to Azkaban, not killed.

The 'power the Dark Lord knows not' idea was so good. Sadly HBP 
delivered this funny four-horcruxes-to-find-and-destroy mission and 
now it's all about the action. I hope it's a hoax, at least in the 
sense that the tiresome horcruxes may exist allright, but in the end 
their importance will be very small. And the real big deal will be, 
as it always has been since Book 1, with the exception of Book 6, 
doing the right thing. I hope Harry will defeat Voldemort not 
performing any silly magical tricks, but chosing 'right over easy', 
and if that happens without the need of magic, simply by doing the 
noble difficult sacrifice thing... Yeeeeeessss!!!!!!!! Cheesy I now 
but we have our ideas of our dream endings don't we???

Lucianam, pointing her accusatory finger at HBP and hoping it was 
all a bad dream (now I'm overreacting).






From jknecht84 at yahoo.com.br  Mon Nov 21 18:30:01 2005
From: jknecht84 at yahoo.com.br (Rafael Brando Brasil)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:30:01 -0300
Subject: Sorting out the Sorting Hat haha
References: <dlt167+sfpl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c5eec9$a748a400$c014fea9@server>

No: HPFGUIDX 143316

truthbeauty1 wrote:
> There has recently been some discussion of the sorting hat 
> as a horcrux. <snip> There are several good arguments against 
> this theory. However, I believe that there is plenty of good
> canon evidence for the theory. <snip> One final thought . In 
> C.O.S, Arthur makes a very profound statement that is 
> Italicized by Rowling. "Never trust anything that can think 
> for itself (if you can't see where it keeps its brain.)" 
> ()==italicized I think that this is a fairly hypocritical
> statement considering that everyone in that room puts faith 
> in an object that fits this description. Why did J.K.Rowling 
> include this statement and why did she italicize it if is not 
> important. I believe she is making a subtle hint here about 
> the sorting hat, which figures very strongly into this story. 


jknecht:
I?m not actually positive about the sorting hat being a horcrux 
or not, but I do believe that what you?ve said is a very good 
point. Because, I don?t know, when I first read Arthur saying 
that, it felt kinda weird to me, a little out of place, I mean, 
nobody has ever suspected the hat (for there were no reasons for 
that), and out of nowhere he said that. It really may be a hint begging for our attention right from book 2, yet very well hidden 
(quite typical, I should say). I believe it would just be nice. 

And I also think another good point for the hat to be a horcrux 
is the fact that DEs usually come from Slytherin. I?ve read 
somewhere (don?t know where right now) that, this Slytherin 
house?s characteristic may not be a cause of that, but a 
consequence. Being a horcrux, the hat could have been set to "handpick" those who have the potential to become a DE (among 
other aspects, of course).

Nevertheless, I have no clue as to how Tom might have done it, 
and that?s why I?m not positive. But there are hints (Dumbledore 
missing the hat when talking about the founders? items is 
another), there are motivations, like the diary, it could have 
been used with a purpose, and it would be a real surprise (to the 
characters, at least).






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 01:45:02 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:45:02 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltt6v+6mg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143317

> >>Alla: 
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,       
> Chapter 4,Horace Slughorn.
> <snip> 

> QUESTIONS. 
> 1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
> Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
> attacked tonight."
> Harry: "Why not, sir?"
> "You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
> Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
> "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
> stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 
> Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

Betsy Hp:
Definitely.  As Carol said, it symbolizes Dumbledore passing the 
torch to Harry.  And it raises a question for me: Is Dumbledore that 
aware of his limited time in "The Cave" chapter?  Did he suspect 
that he wouldn't be around for much longer?  Because he's very sure 
of himself and his power, injury and all, in the "Horace Slughorn" 
chapter.
 
> 2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
> dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
> enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that    
> Harry had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary 
> for Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of      
> Sirius in order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be           
> successful? In other words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of 
> the connection during OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was   
> not? How does Dumbledore know that Voldemort is now employing      
> Occlumency against Harry?

Betsy Hp:
I think most of Dumbldore's Voldemort info., especially the intimate 
stuff, comes from Snape.  And I wonder, because Voldemort *is* aware 
of Harry's access to his mind in OotP, if Snape and Dumbledore 
didn't cook up a tiny fib about Harry's ability to access 
Voldemort's mind after the DoM battle.  Obviously Voldemort had 
complete control of his mind-link with Harry in OotP.  So why does 
he totally shut down that access now?  If Snape and Dumbledore 
decided that Harry really was horrible at Occlumency and he'd never 
fully grasp the skill, wouldn't it make sense to try and shut down 
the connection at the other end?  Maybe tell Voldemort that 
Dumbledore has some ideas on how to use Harry to access Voldemort's 
mind and encourage Voldemort to do the work for them?  Total 
speculation of course, and a bit off topic, but it makes for a good 
tale. <g>
 
> 3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to   
> set the Dark Mark over the House. 
> <snip>
> Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no connections with 
> Death Eaters at all?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The Dark Mark is really just a shiny light display in the end, isn't 
it?  I mean, it doesn't *do* anything but hang there and sparkle.  
So it seems that any wizard or witch with the right skill level 
(whatever skill level that is) could approximate a Dark Mark if they 
wanted to.  They might not get the curve of the snake right, or the 
proper shade of green, but they'd get something close, I'd imagine.

This didn't bother me, but that's probably because it didn't bother 
Dumbledore.  He was the one to point out it was missing after all.  
So it didn't send up any red-flags for me.  I *did* wonder about the 
implication that every single Death Eater attack *has* to have a 
Dark Mark floating over it when all is said and done.  Talk about 
overkill.  Voldemort the drama queen strikes again. <g>
 
> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year,"    
> how does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village 
> of Budleigh Babberton?

Betsy Hp:
I'm betting Dumbledore kept an eye on old Horace since he left 
Hogwarts.  Partially out of concern for an old friend with so many 
dangerous ties to the Death Eaters, but also because Dumbledore is a 
very good collecter himself.  Not that he actively pursues people 
he's interested in, but I think he does keep a close watch on those 
he finds interesting.  Especially since he's been aware of Tom 
Riddle's machinations for so long.
   
> 5. When I was preparing the questions for this chapter discussion, 
> I could not shake the feeling that I am having Mark Evans de ja    
> vu. Why? Because I started seeing symbolism where JKR probably had 
> no intention to write anything symbolic. Nevertheless, when Albus 
> asks Slughorn whether he needs his assistance in cleaning up and   
> Slughorn answers positively, I for some reason saw the possible   
> foreshadowing of Gryffindor and Slytherin cooperation. Am I seeing 
> things?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think there's been forshadowing of Slytherin and Gryffindor 
cooperation since at least OotP with the Sorting Hat's song.  
Harry's rejection of and fear of his Slytherin side is another 
forshadowing of a future reconciliation. 

I agree with what Carol said in her response (message #143313): "And 
IMO, we've been seeing Gryffindor/Slytherin cooperation through six 
books in the form of Dumbledore and Snape."

However, I think the final reconciliation will take place when Harry 
willingly works with a Slytherin.  My money is on Draco.

[Skipping question 6 because I don't even know. <g>]
  
> 7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a year",   
> how does he know about Dumbledore's injury?

Betsy Hp:
It looks to me that Slughorn only noticed Dumbledore was injured 
after Dumbledore arrived.

> Is there any significance that he describes the reason for the     
> injury basically the same way Snape describes it to Bella          
> in "Spinner's end"?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again, I agree with Carol, that this was the most obvious excuse so 
Dumbledore and Snape have decided to go with this particular tale.  
It's always struck me as fake because Dumbledore was so clearly 
*not* suffering from slowed reactions when he battled Voldemort in 
OotP.
 
> 8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned    
> about Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

Betsy Hp:
Well, no. Because Dumbledore (very cleverly, IMO) acts like it's no 
big deal.  He doesn't try and hide it, he doesn't flinch when it's 
pointed out.  Why should others worry when he himself does not?

> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I      
> mean, particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you 
> read anything about him on the HPFGU.

Betsy Hp:
I was thrilled Harry finally met a Slytherin he didn't automatically 
hate.  I also thought Slughorn would make a great DADA teacher. <g>  
And I thought that Slughorn was gay in an old-fashioned George 
Bernard Shaw sort of way and admired Harry for more than just his 
scar. 

> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents    
> even in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so.    
> Here Harry meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like 
> his mother very much and Harry is still not asking him any         
> questions about Lily. What do you think about it?

Betsy Hp:
It might be that Harry holds his parents very close and private.  
The Dursleys were so hostile about talking about them, and so 
negative the rare times they did speak of Lily and James.  In a way, 
I think it's very hard for Harry to speak about his parents.  
Whenever he does hear about them it almost seems to hurt him as much 
as it pleases him.  So I'd imagine it'd be that much more difficult 
for him to talk about them with a virtual stranger.

> >>Carol's additional question:
> Does anyone besides me think that the overstuffed chair
> into which Dumbledore poked his wand showed signs of magical
> concealment? If not, how would he know that Horace had transfigured
> himself into *that* particular chair? And if so, is this little
> incident a foreshadowing of the magical concealment motif (the ring
> and the locket) later in the book?

Betsy Hp:
Hmm.  I guess I'd always assumed it was more Dumbledore's great 
powers of observation rather than any particular magical skill.  For 
one, there should have been magical signatures all over the room 
because of Slughorn's work.  For another, it wouldn't be much of a 
protection if there were magical signs, and I think Slughorn is 
supposed to be pretty good at hiding.  Both he and Dumbledore seemed 
to see it as a bit of a friendly competition.  How much time did it 
take, what clue did I give away, etc.

Perhaps it could be seen as a forshadowing of concealment in 
general.  The whole, things aren't always how they first appear, 
sort of thing.

Good questions, Alla!

Betsy Hp (Second!) 






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 02:15:05 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:15:05 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt47v+q6bp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltuv9+shen@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143318

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > > <snip> 
> > > <Because when [Snape] does visibly suffer, his suffering is   
> > > described as matching Fang's suffering.  And no one sane      
> > > writes about a beloved and innocent pet being burned alive    
> > > expecting the audience to *not* sympathize with the animal.

> >>Lupinlore: 
> > Except when it's Trevor and Snape is trying to poison him?      
> > Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

> >>hekatesheadband:
> I'm with Lupinlore on this one, and I'll go a bit further. The     
> burning hut scene cost Snape the last shred of sympathy or trust   
> he could have hoped for from me. Betsy's right: anyone should     
> sympathise with "a beloved and innocent pet being burned alive."   
> Snape doesn't - he's completely oblivious to Fang. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Heh.  You both took my response in a totally different direction 
than I was going.  I was more answering the question, does JKR care 
for Snape, by saying that she *described* his suffering as being the 
same as the suffering Fang.  IOW, JKR must have felt sympathy for 
Snape to describe him in such a manner.

However, this is an interesting tangent, so I'll bite <g>.  First 
and foremost, Snape *never* tried to poison Trevor.  If he had 
attempted to do so, Trevor would be dead (or sporting a third 
eyeball or whatever the poison was meant to do).  *Neville* was the 
one preparing to poison his pet.  Snape was standing by with the 
antidote.  And Snape's instructions to Neville were *not* on how to 
create an effective poison.  The potion Snape assigned to the class 
would not have adversely harmed Trevor at all.  As we saw when 
Trevor took it.  There was a bit of psychological pressure being put 
on Neville, but Trevor came out unscathed.

As to Fang, like Harry, Snape was more worried about human victims 
before the animal.  As Pippin pointed out, Harry wasn't quick to 
abandon Snape and rush to Fang's rescue.  And when Snape *does* 
leave, Harry is worried about *Hagrid's* safety.  It's only after 
Hagrid is shown to be safe that Harry feels relief that Fang is safe 
too.  If Snape had tried to rescue Fang, Harry would have either 
killed or incapacitated him.  Both would have had dire concequences, 
IMO, since I'm DDM!.

I'd also point out that it's Snape who draws the Death Eaters away 
from Hagrid, allowing Hagrid to rescue Fang.  Plus, Buckbeak is 
still alive.  If Snape is such an animal hater, why didn't he take 
the opportunity to kill Buckbeak?  I don't believe hippogriffs are 
all that hard for a wizard of Snape's caliber to kill, or at least 
harm quite badly.

Betsy Hp






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 02:31:26 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:31:26 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser/ Snape as animal rescuer
In-Reply-To: <dltuv9+shen@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dltvtu+q5jt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143319

Betsy Hp:
> As to Fang, like Harry, Snape was more worried about human victims 
> before the animal.  

Alla:

Oh, which human victims when he was running away?


Bety
> I'd also point out that it's Snape who draws the Death Eaters away 
> from Hagrid, allowing Hagrid to rescue Fang.  Plus, Buckbeak is 
> still alive.  If Snape is such an animal hater, why didn't he take 
> the opportunity to kill Buckbeak?  I don't believe hippogriffs are 
> all that hard for a wizard of Snape's caliber to kill, or at least 
> harm quite badly.


Alla:

LOLOL! Snape did not kill Buckbeak, because Buckbeak was about to 
kill him IMO. It seemed to me that Bucky had a HUGE advantage when 
he was attacking and Snape was very lucky to escape. :-)
I did not see Snape even TRY fighting Bucky, just running for his 
life. But after all that is my most charitable intepretation of 
Tower scene - Snape running for his life.


JMO of course,

Alla






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 02:34:34 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:34:34 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt5jj+lb2f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu03q+r9v2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143320

> >>Betsy HP:
> > <snip>
> > It's a question of power.  Watching someone powerful stick it to 
> > someone weaker is not a great example of poetic justice, IMO.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Much that I share you dislike of big and powerful bullying small   
> and weak, I don't see why it couldn't qualify as "poetic justice" 
> on occasion. Poetic justice means quite simply that the punishment 
> fits the crime.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You're right.  I actually edited my statement from "is never a good 
example" for that reason.  And it *is* possible to have the powerful 
attack the weak as an example of poetic justice, but there has to be 
great care taken, IMO, that the punishment *does* fit the crime.  
With JKR, unfortuntely, the punishment often seems *way* over the 
top.  Montague was trying to take some house points -- so he 
suddenly deserves to float in limbo for several days?  A limbo he's 
barely able to escape that leaves him in the hospital ward?  Somehow 
that's supposed to fit the "crime" of trying to take house points?  
I don't think so, JKR.  (I still hope she doesn't really think so 
either, and will show us that in book 7.)

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> And with the revelations about Snape's parentage, the whole 'poor 
> Snape abused by his father/family/whatever' scenario has started  
> to sprout at least a few holes. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
What holes?  This is the first I've heard of holes.

Betsy Hp






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 02:41:02 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:41:02 -0000
Subject: Teaching Harry
In-Reply-To: <dlt9jk+dqqq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu0fu+f5de@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143321

Orna wrote: <snip>
"Harry's power OTOH lies in his love ? so we are told, or in Snape's 
language ? receiving help from talented friends. I agree with you, 
that in no encounter Harry could have survived without help from 
friends (living or dead), who come to his aid and rescue. That's 
power in a way - being able to draw friends willfully to help him ? 
even if it involves endangering their lives. It has to do with love. 
Nobody could imagine anybody coming to Voldermort's aid, just 
because of love. Even his most insanely devoted servants (Bella, 
Crouch jr.) never fail to mention that they are going to be honored 
and rewarded ? beyond any other DE. That's also, why although the DE 
fight together, there is never love between them. 
Without coercion, torturing, threats, and promises of rewards or 
power-rewards nobody would help him for a second. When Voldermort 
holds his speech in GoF, he says, that he was sure some devoted DE 
would look for him. I think that there lie the seeds for his 
downfall."  <Snip a ton>


CH3ed:
I agree with Orna's excellent post. Aside from the few true fanatics 
like Crouch Jr and Bella, most of the DEs are in LV's camp because 
they revere LV's power and because they are afraid of him. I think 
that when Harry emerges as more and more obviously powerfully 
magical....rivaling LV, the DE's loyalty to LV would weaken. 

The seed of that should have been planted when Harry, without any 
help, survived a one-on-one (ignoring the DE's witnessing) dual with 
LV in the graveyard scene in GoF. It was Harry, the underage wizard, 
who forced LV's wand to regurgitate spells and not the other way 
around. I think that as the DEs are held to LV by his power and 
threats, they may desert LV if they see Harry as more powerful and 
merciful (may protect them from LV). Even the fanatical ones (whose 
one-sided love for LV is subject to betrayal at LV's pleasure) may 
snap back and betray their dark lord if they think Harry has 
realistic chance at vanquishing LV (I'm thinking of Slug's warning 
about the power of obsessive love... when it is not returned?).
CH3ed






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Tue Nov 22 02:18:28 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:18:28 +0100
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
References: <dltp4b+c0j1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011b01c5ef0b$0723c2b0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143322

lucianam73 wrote:
> I can understand I'm a minority in this, but I do have a problem
> with the new Harry and Dumbledore. Why so eager to battle, why so
> ready to drop limits? It seems, at least to me, a lot different from
> the ethical messages the earlier books delivered.

Maybe Rowling is building up this for the effect of destroying it? I agree
that there ist a shift in the ethical messages in HBP, but it's difficult to
judge it before the 7th book. But - we still have the message "love is what
matters", we still have the message "Harry should not use unforgivible
curses".

Harry Potter is still for young readers, and therefore Rowlings ethical
development may have some educational aspects.
Young people (and not only them) tend to be radical concerning the
antagonism ethics of conscience vs. ethics of responsibility I mentioned
earlier. Fake!Moody being evil because of his Avada Kedavra at the spider,
or wanting Harry to slaughter all Deatheaters, Snape and Voldemort in the
final showdown with a big bang.

I do expect Rowling bringing up the message of balancing in between - she
did it before. But as she has to use Harry as the bearer of message, to find
this balance cannot be the result of ethical studies or education .he has to
understand for himself. What we now see ist, that he builds up hatred and
the urge for revenge. This should continue during book 7, I expect more
losses for Harry. But in the end - Rowling told us - love will matter. And
Christian message will matter - IMHO forgiveness, but it's note more than a
guess.

To get the act together will be difficult for Rowling, if my assumption of
building up the urge for violence in Harry to transform it in the end is
what she wants to do. And she could fail - authors more talented failed in
transporting their ethical messages. But - we will have to wait for the last
act.

Miles







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 22 03:00:18 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:00:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu1k2+md0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143323

 Potioncat:
Very good, thought provoking questions, Alla.

> 
> 1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
> Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
> attacked tonight."
> Harry: "Why not, sir?"
> "You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
>  Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
>  "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
> stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 

> Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

Potioncat:
I see Carol and Betsy have already been here. And I'm going to 
disagree..sort of.

Yes, there is a parallel. Good point, Alla, and it's a very moving 
one. But I remember how that sentence sounded the first time. It was 
DD sounding confident and almost boastful...who would dare attack DD?

Then, farther into the book, it takes a different slant. We aren't 
certain of the timeline. Is this the same night as chapters 1 and 2, 
or perhaps a week later? Consider this possibility: if Snape and DD 
really did know that LV had tasked Draco with DD's death, then 
tonight, DD knows he won't be attacked. He knows it will be Draco, at 
the castle making an attempt, not DEs on the streets.
>
 
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean, 
> particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
> anything about him on the HPFGU.

Potioncat:
OK, for what it's worth, I knew he was going to be the Potions 
Master. And when DD says something about not counting owls, I was 
dead certain. It was something in the way that DADA was never, ever 
mentioned.

Interesting that Slughorn seems very, very good at transfiguration. I 
almost think he's better at that than at potion making... or at least 
at practical use of potions. I just read the chapter where Ron is 
poisoned and Slughorn freezes. It's Harry who grabs the bezoar. 

It was nice to meet a different sort of Slytherin. We had DD's bit of 
a warning, yet DD seems to genuinely like him...I think...and they 
seem to work well together...standing back to back. But it was clear 
that Slughorn was out for himself. 
 
I'll take on the other questions later...but I did want a chance at 
these.







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 03:11:46 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:11:46 -0000
Subject: 12 OWLs/CanOpener/SecretTunnel/Petunia/Unforgivables/ThoseCloseCalls/Teacher
In-Reply-To: <dlrame+5bfi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu29i+m8ql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143324

Catlady  wrote: 
"A candy shop will get more profit from teen-age frequent customers
than a magical devices shop, a book shop, a stationery shop, etc,
therefore Honeydukes has more motive to provide Hogwarts students 
with an easy access than the other Hogsmead shops do. (I don't think
Hogsmead *has* a teen-age trendy clothing shop to buy 200-Galleon
trainers and 800-Galleon jumpers, because the school uniform means 
the kids don't get much chance to wear trendy stuff during the school
year.)" <snip>


CH3ed:
It would be good for business, I think. The school I work at has a 
Barnes & Noble Bookstore on campus. But the construction of such a 
tunnel would have to have been approved by Hogwarts since the 
Castle's magical protections would extend underground too (or that 
would be a rather bad mistake by the 4 founders), I think. Besides, 
the entrance goes right into the castle and not just on the ground 
somewhere.  So if anything, the construction is initiated from 
Hogwarts to other places rather than the other way around. Also the 
commercial tunnel shouldn't be a secret one protected by a password 
(dissendium), but one that students can access freely. :O)
CH3ed







From xmilesx at gmx.de  Tue Nov 22 03:15:31 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:15:31 +0100
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
References: <dlu1k2+md0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013301c5ef12$ff500050$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143325

potioncat wrote:
> We aren't certain of the timeline.

Miles: I think we are, since Rowling strictly keeps chronology in 
all books 1 to 6. Not to do it here without any clue - kind of deus 
ex machina, I don't think she would do this. Furthermore, it's not 
necessary at all for the her to bamboozle with timeline.

> Potioncat:
> It was nice to meet a different sort of Slytherin.

Miles: I go with Redhen to state that Slughorn is not a different 
sort of Slytherin, but the prototype for the "real" Slytherins 
before Voldemort - one reason for Dumbledore to get him back to 
Hogwarts, but this is off-topic concerning this chapter.

Miles, in his timeline near bedtime ;)






From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 22 03:40:35 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:40:35 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlu03q+r9v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu3vj+5qm6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143326

 
> Betsy Hp:
> ....  
> With JKR, unfortuntely, the punishment often seems *way* over the 
> top.  Montague was trying to take some house points -- so he 
> suddenly deserves to float in limbo for several days?  A limbo he's 
> barely able to escape that leaves him in the hospital ward?  Somehow 
> that's supposed to fit the "crime" of trying to take house points?  
> I don't think so, JKR.  (I still hope she doesn't really think so 
> either, and will show us that in book 7.)

Valky now:
The "crime" is far greater than taking a few house points. It should
be measured in context, and therefore be estimated as appropriate to
the cost/bribe that endows one with the powers of the little silver I
badge under the Toad regime. IOW Montague's crimes in book five are at
least in the vicinity of volunteering material aid to Umbridges
hostile takeover of Hogwarts and oppression of Harry and his
housemates and friends - beyond and including his Slytherin Quidditch
team's reprehensible attack on Harry when he caught the snitch and
other acts of sabotage on the Gryffindor team in the game in chapter
19, the consequences of the same he found most amusing to discuss over
dinner that night. 

In short I think JKR means us to measure Fred and Georges attack on
Montague as proportionate to Fred and Georges suffering - being kicked
when they were clearly down. Sure I agree with you that in hindsight
it's a bit harsh that they put Montague in hospital, certainly not
perfect retribution for what he had done but OTOH I insist it is wrong
to measure it that way, for Fred and George it was their fight against
a contingent of the army of their oppressor, it's unfair to paint them
as the 'bully' here given that in the context of the book they were
the underdog rebels with their face in the dirt. They were fighting
back, not standing over.

In my Humble Opinion
Valky








From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 22 04:09:12 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:09:12 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlu3vj+5qm6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu5l8+42ue@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143327

I (Valky) wrote earlier:
> Montague's crimes in book five are at
> least in the vicinity of volunteering material aid to Umbridges
> hostile takeover of Hogwarts and oppression of Harry and his
> housemates and friends 

Now adding to that:
Just for Alla's amusement I thought I should add that JKR seems to
have covered F&G's Karmic retribution with superior flair. As of HBP
Fred and George are, although unwittingly and inadvertantly,
unquestionably guilty of exactly the same crime as Montague - To wit
they have volunteered material aid to a hostile takeover of Hogwarts! 
BANG! That's Karma if I ever saw it. <bg>

Valky







From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 22 04:18:19 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:18:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
References: <dlu3vj+5qm6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00c001c5ef1b$c548b880$5b80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143328

> Valky now:
> In short I think JKR means us to measure Fred and Georges attack on
> Montague as proportionate to Fred and Georges suffering - being kicked
> when they were clearly down. Sure I agree with you that in hindsight
> it's a bit harsh that they put Montague in hospital, certainly not
> perfect retribution for what he had done but OTOH I insist it is wrong
> to measure it that way, for Fred and George it was their fight against
> a contingent of the army of their oppressor, it's unfair to paint them
> as the 'bully' here given that in the context of the book they were
> the underdog rebels with their face in the dirt. They were fighting
> back, not standing over.


Magpie:

Ironically, they received "poetic justice" for that act in the next book, 
when it turned out that trip into limbo is what got DEs into Hogwarts, along 
with a werewolf who permenantly disfigured their brother--oops!

Honestly, I really hope JKR isn't judging everybody this way on this cosmic 
scale, because this just seems like...well, this sounds more like the way 
Snape sees the world.  The way I read the books, sometimes things just 
happen, and nobody beating up on or tormenting or bullying somebody else is 
ever karmic or poetic anything.  Maybe we enjoy some tormenting better than 
others, but I'm never going to see somebody enjoying hurting somebody else 
as nobly administering justice.   Though I'm sure that's exactly what James 
thought it was when he was turning Snape upsidedown, and what many would see 
that scene as if we'd been reading about the MWPP era.

-m

-m 





From tifflblack at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 22 06:08:35 2005
From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:08:35 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1EeRKI-0005nH-0D@smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143329

Tiffany:
Ok. Here's my take on these.
 

Ala:
Slughorn notices Dumbledore's injured hand and comments, "Reactions 
not what they were, I see." Dumbledore agrees that he is slower than 
he was, but shrugs and spreads his hands wide, which Harry 
interprets as his headmaster's way of indicating that age had its 
compensations. Harry also notices a gold ring on Dumbledore's 
uninjured hand.

Tiffany:
Just my own little comment here. Silly me, I thought that ring was an
engagement ring when I read the chapter for the first time.

Ala:


QUESTIONS.


4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how 
does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
Budleigh Babberton?  

Tiffany:
My best guess is that Dumbledore send Fawkes to scout for him.


Ala:
9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean, 
particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
anything about him on the HPFGU. 

Tiffany:
I didn't like Slughorn, and still don't. I don't think he's evil, but he's
not a man I could ever like, too pompous, too well connected and proud of
it. Unfortunately, were Slughorn a real person, I'm afraid he would want to
"collect" me, as I am totally blind.


Well, Those are the only ones I really think I can tackle. Have a good day.
Tiffany




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 22 06:54:06 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:54:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlufae+9biq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143330

Thanks, Alla! I couldn't add much but "I agree" to other answers on 
the thread, but these two caught my eye.

> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I
> mean, particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you
> read anything about him on the HPFGU. 

Jen: I had a positive impression of Slughorn, despite his obvious 
failings. He struck me as another wacky, older friend of 
Dumbledore's, along the lines of Mad-Eye, but with a hedonist bent 
instead of a paranoid one. JKR is so good at drawing characters who 
are almost caricatures, until she shows us hints of deeper 
struggles. For me, Slughorn's moment came when he mentioned 
traveling around, moving his piano from Muggle house to Muggle 
house, sadly giving up on his hampers of sweets and Quidditch 
tickets. I wondered later if he wasn't trying to keep himself from 
being put into a position like Pettigrew, where his hand would be 
forced and he could either die or become another servant of 
Voldemort. It's not exactly noble, but none of JKR's characters are 
purely noble, all have their weaknesses, and any attempt to defy 
Voldemort appears to be an act of courage in Potterverse. Or at 
least, Dumbledore didn't seem to look down on Slughorn for his 
choice, even if Harry did. 

Also, I snipped that question about the symbolism of Dumbledore and 
Slughorn working side-to-side in unison, but it did look like a hint 
they were meant to be viewed as equals, more than say 
Mcgonagall/Snape and Dumbledore. Age, experience, working together 
as colleagues, etc., diminished the power differential between them.


> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents
> even in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so.
> Here Harry meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like
> his mother very much and Harry is still not asking him any
> questions about Lily. What do you think about it?

Jen: Grrrrr. You mean besides JKR stringing this out as long as she 
can, refusing to spill the beans on Lily? ;)

OK, a reason inside the story. Well, mainly I think it was Harry's 
age & circumstance. This is the first year since year 3 that Harry 
hasn't been actively in danger while at Hogwarts (well, and year 3 
with the Dementors wasn't a piece of cake).  He's enjoying himself 
in HBP, acting like any boy of 16 who thinks mainly about friends, 
rivals and luurve in no certain order. Danger is forestalled for the 
moment, seen only in dark hints like Dumbledore's withered hand and 
Draco's increasing obsession. 

Also, Harry doesn't think of Slughorn as someone he could confide 
in, not like a Lupin or Sirius, and once Harry attempted to retrieve 
the memory, Slughorn wouldn't be alone with him.

Jen







From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Nov 22 07:08:22 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:08:22 EST
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
Message-ID: <12e.6add2f16.30b41de6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143332

This is a repost of my previous post with correct attributions.  Sorry!

> Pippin:
> Um, where are you getting all this? Canon is very  clear about what
happened.
> Snape  fled because Buckbeak chased  him off.
 
hekatesheadband wrote:

I'm getting it from pages 562-564, Raincoast  edition (don't know the
American page numbers, sorry). Snape stood there  taunting Harry for
however long - doesn't much matter, at least from my  perspective. He
was quite aware of his surroundings, and he snarled at Harry  and did
nothing to help Fang. As for Harry: he didn't have his wand and  Snape
was preventing him from moving, thus from helping the dog. He  does
note in passing an urge to "give [Snape] chase," but nonetheless  he
turns immediately toward the hut, wasting no time in a useless  effort
despite the circumstances. Yes, Hagrid has beat him to the  task.
Nobody was blocking him.
 
 

Julie:
This is a bit ridiculous, and I don't mean to be insulting. But it  does
seem that way to me. Snape and Harry were engaged in a duel.
*Neither* of them suddenly stopped and said "Wait! An innocent
animal is dying and I must save him!" And it doesn't really matter
if Snape was blocking Harry's spells, because Harry could  have turned
and run toward Hagrid's hut at *any* time (and he heard Hagrid yell
"Fang's in there!" and the wild yelping of Fang HALFWAY through
the duel, but continued to throw spells at Snape, uncaring of
Fang's predicament in your definition). Snape wouldn't have stopped
Harry, Snape just wanted to get away. 
 
In fact, neither of them bothered with Fang, and both heard Hagrid
yell, so both could have presumably assumed Hagrid would get
the dog. Still, neither considered Fang more important than their 
respective goals--Snape to escape, and Harry to kill Snape. 
 
Oh, and Harry didn't give a "passing" thought to going after 
Snape. He "hoped" to give chase again, but sure enough BY
the time he'd located his wand (not running to save Fang, mind
you, but looking for his wand), Buckbeak was circling the gates
and Snape had disapparated. ONLY then does Harry think of
Hagrid (not Fang, though the dog can be assumed to be part 
of the thought) and turns to see Hagrid approaching with Fang
in his arms. 
 
Snape has his faults, and very many of them. He may even be
a killer, depending on how the Tower scene plays out in Book 7.
But there is nothing in this scene supporting Snape as cruel,
uncaring animal hater, and Harry as loving, noble animal  saviour.
They are essentially the same here, each totally absorbed in  their
own emotions of the moment. 
 
Julie 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Nov 22 07:19:15 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:19:15 EST
Subject: Why didn't Fawkes turn up??
Message-ID: <236.216d0be.30b42073@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143333

 
scam wrote:

When the duel between AD and LV was taking place, Fawkes  comes there 
and swallows an avada kedavra aimed at AD... without which AD  would 
not be alive... and the ministry is SO very far away from  Hogwarts.

So, when the entire conversation between AD and Draco (DM) was  taking 
place on the castle ramparts itself (IMO, ample time for Fawkes to  have 
sensed danger to its master), why didn't Fawkes turn up?  It would  
have been obvious that Fawkes would have turned up immediately, yet 
he  does not 'appear' to be there until after everyone's gone inside. 
Why has  this important link between AD and Fawkes been ignored, in HBP 
all of a  sudden??? 






Julie:
I think it's because Dumbledore didn't "summon" him, in whatever 
way, consciously or subconsciously, Dumbledore summons Fawkes.
It was already too late for Fawkes to help him, or he didn't *want* 
Fawkes to help him, which is a very strong indicator that Dumbledore
expected to die on the Tower (and may have already been dying
before Snape "killed" him). Certainly if Dumbledore wanted to live
(and if his "Severus, please..." was a plea for his life) then Fawkes
could easily have saved him. 
 
The other explanation is that JKR mistakenly forgot about Fawkes,
but since he shows up later, that doesn't make much sense to me.
I think Fawkes' absence was intentional. 
 
Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 22 07:48:16 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:48:16 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltmsj+a8kf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dluig0+lfn4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143335

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:

Carol:
> > 3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to 
set
> the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he muttered. "Knew
> there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had time anyway" I
> realize that I am missing something obvious here, but it bugs me
> nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark?

<snip>

> But Slughorn is a Wizard, and seemingly a pretty powerful one
> since he's a furnituremorphagus (sorry--I don't know the Latin term
> for furniture!).

Geoff:
Perhaps slightly OT but could I offer "supellexmorphmagus"
or "apparatusmorphmagus"?








From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 08:55:14 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:55:14 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Fawkes turn up??
In-Reply-To: <236.216d0be.30b42073@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dlumdi+i5dr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143336

scam wrote: 
"So, when the entire conversation between AD and Draco (DM) was taking 
place on the castle ramparts itself (IMO, ample time for Fawkes to 
have 
sensed danger to its master), why didn't Fawkes turn up?" <snip>


CH3ed:
I think Fawkes was standing down from the whole confrontation on DD's 
order. It would make sense with the theory that DD and Snape had 
anticipated the possibility of the tower scene happening (not in exact 
details, of course), and DD made Snape promise to sacrifice DD to safe 
Malfoy (from becoming a murderer or be murdered himself by DE's on 
LV's order) and Harry and the rest of the student. The DDM Snape 
didn't like the plan, hence the argument between him and DD in the 
forest that Hagrid overheard. 

The other possibility is that Fawkes was engaged on a mission 
elsewhere all evening(or he would probably have gone with DD and Harry 
to the cave) and didn't get back until too late.
CH3ed 







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 22 10:57:36 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:57:36 -0000
Subject: 12 OWLs/CanOpener/SecretTunnel/Petunia/Unforgivables/ThoseCloseCalls/Teacher
In-Reply-To: <dlu29i+m8ql@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlutj0+7545@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143337

CH3ed:
> The school I work at has a 
> Barnes & Noble Bookstore on campus. But the construction of such a 
> tunnel would have to have been approved by Hogwarts since the 
> Castle's magical protections would extend underground too (or that 
> would be a rather bad mistake by the 4 founders), I think. Besides, 
> the entrance goes right into the castle and not just on the ground 
> somewhere...

Ceridwen:
Just a thought: At the time the castle was built, could Hogsmeade have 
been within the Founders' protections?  And if so, could it have been 
an escape route from the town into the castle in case of emergency?  
The times were supposedly dangerous, with Muggles out to get wizards, 
according to the story.

Ceridwen.






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 11:43:52 2005
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:43:52 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dk60b0+3r5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlv09o+epd9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143338

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...>
wrote:

 [Quoting HBP] 
> `But while I was at the Dursleys',' interrupted Harry, his voice 
> growing stronger, `I realised I can't shut myself away or _ or crack 
> up. Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he? And anyway, life's 
> too short 
 look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance 
 it could 
> be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said fiercely, now 
> looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming in the wand-
> light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, 
> and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'
 
> `Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true 
> godson!' said Dumbledore,  with an approving pat on Harry's back. `I 
> take my hat off to you _ or I would, if I were not afraid of 
> showering you in spiders.
> (from Chapter 2, `Horace Slughorn')
 
> That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
> short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in the 
> series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral 
> debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As many 
> as you can!  
 
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  Edmund Burke

I see no other moral course, either for Harry or Dumbledore.  Do you?
 
Amiable Dorsai 






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 22 11:56:09 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:56:09 -0000
Subject: timeline Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <013301c5ef12$ff500050$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dlv10p+tq18@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143339


> potioncat wrote:
> > We aren't certain of the timeline.
> 
> Miles: I think we are, since Rowling strictly keeps chronology in 
> all books 1 to 6. Not to do it here without any clue - kind of deus 
> ex machina, I don't think she would do this. Furthermore, it's not 
> necessary at all for the her to bamboozle with timeline.
> 

Potioncat:
So, do you think all 4 chapters are the same night? Or do you think 1&2 
are one night with 3&4 a week later? I don't think JKR is bamboozling 
anything, I just don't think it's clear and I think both are possible. 
For them to be the same night, she actually does a bit of time turning, 
that is, chapter 3 would start not at the end of chapter 2, but at the 
same time as chapter 1....I think. I don't have a strong opinion on 
which is more likely. 







From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 22 12:05:40 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:05:40 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlv1ik+s787@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143340

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>

> 
> 2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
> dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
> enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that 
Harry 
> had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for 
> Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in 
> order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In other 
> words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of the connection during 
> OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was not? How does Dumbledore 
> know that Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against Harry?

Snape gives us the particulars during Harry's first Occlumency lesson 
in OOP Chap. 24

'It appears that the Dark Lord has been unaware of the connection 
between you and himself until very recently. Up till now it seems 
that you have been experiencing his emotions, and sharing his 
thoughts, without his being any the wiser. However, the vision you 
had shortly before Christmas -'

The one with the snake and Mr Weasley?'

'Do not interrupt me, Potter,' said Snape in a dangerous voice. 'As I 
was saying, the vision you had shortly before Christmas represented 
such a powerful incursion upon the Dark Lord's thoughts -'

'I saw inside the snake's head, not his!......'



'You seem to have visited the snake's mind because that was where 
the Dark Lord was at that particular moment,' snarled Snape. 'He was 
possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside 
it, too.'
'And Vol? he - realised I was there?'
'It seems so,' said Snape coolly.

'How do you know?' said Harry urgently. 'Is this just Professor 
Dumbledore guessing, or -?....'

...'It is enough that we know,' said Snape repressively. 'The 
important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are 
gaining access to his thoughts and feelings. He has also deduced that 
the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has 
realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings 
in return -'


> 
> 
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean, 
> particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
> anything about him on the HPFGU. 

I thought him a splendidly portrayed character, a great comic 
monster, the quintessence of worldly corruption, a more savvy 
Lockhart more interested in reflecting the limelight than revelling 
in it himself. I'm struck by how many people on this list will say 
things "I don't like Character X because I wouldn't like him in RL, 
or he would do A,B, & C to me in RL."  We should remember that a 
character is sometimes deliberately designed by the author to be 
somewhat disagreeable, or less than nice, or morally impure.  That 
says nothing about the quality of the portraiture, which should be 
our main concern.


> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents 
even 
> in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here 
Harry 
> meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother 
> very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about 
> Lily. What do you think about it?

Partially that Harry distrust Slughorn from the start, but partially 
authorial perogative - I'm assuming that she's saving up the details 
on Lily for the final book.

   - CMC









From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Nov 22 12:36:11 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:36:11 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dltuv9+shen@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlv3br+tene@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143341

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
 
> 
> As to Fang, like Harry, Snape was more worried about human victims 
> before the animal.  As Pippin pointed out, Harry wasn't quick to 
> abandon Snape and rush to Fang's rescue.  And when Snape *does* 
> leave, Harry is worried about *Hagrid's* safety.  It's only after 
> Hagrid is shown to be safe that Harry feels relief that Fang is safe 
> too.  If Snape had tried to rescue Fang, Harry would have either 
> killed or incapacitated him.  Both would have had dire concequences, 
> IMO, since I'm DDM!.
> 
> I'd also point out that it's Snape who draws the Death Eaters away 
> from Hagrid, allowing Hagrid to rescue Fang.  Plus, Buckbeak is 
> still alive.  If Snape is such an animal hater, why didn't he take 
> the opportunity to kill Buckbeak?  I don't believe hippogriffs are 
> all that hard for a wizard of Snape's caliber to kill, or at least 
> harm quite badly.
> 
> Betsy Hp
>
I would also like to add it wasn't Snape who set fire to Hagrid's hut
- it was a "large Death Eater".  Snape was busy with Harry at the
moment, just like Harry was busy with Snape.  I didn't see Harry's
overwhemling concern for Fang in the hut until after Snape left. 
Also, Snape did prevent Harry's death by removing the jinx that
another Death Eater had put on Harry.  I think both Harry & Snape were
too much in the momemt of fighting one another to worry about the hut,
Fang or the poor bowtruckles - who did die in the fire.  I don't think
those scenes of Snape & Harry taunting one another took more than a
few minutes in total.  

I don't know how anyone can read this as being: Snape-animal hater,
Harry-animal lover.  It was only after Snape & the DE's were gone,
that Harry's attention went to the hut & Fang, and sure, he was
comforted by Fang's warmth - who wouldn't be?  But that doesn't mean
Fang was on first & foremost on Harry's mind while he was dueling with
Snape.  The passages do not reflect that.  

colebiancardi






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Tue Nov 22 13:27:09 2005
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:27:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlv6bd+dgoi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143342

Marianne:

> 3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to 
set 
> the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he muttered. "Knew 
> there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had time anyway" 
> I realize that I am missing something obvious here, but it bugs me 
> nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no 
> connections with Death Eaters at all? I am guessing that since 
> Winky  was accused of doing so in GoF, the answer is probably yes, 
> but the suggestion  that a house elf had done it was met with such 
> disbelief that maybe not  anybody could do it? What do you think?
'
As Betsy said, it doesn't seem like it's such a big deal - just a 
green glittering thing in the sky. Sort of like a permanent 
firework. I'd suspect, with no canon to support me, that the spell 
or charm for this might be connected with having the Dark Mark on 
one's arm, if for no other reason than that this would be another 
symbolic trapping for use by the DEs. Not because it's difficult, 
but because it's another weapon in their arsenal to set themselves 
apart from others and to because it is something that everyone who 
sees it will associate with them.  I see it as somewhat analogous to 
people who scrawl swaztikas on synagogues.

Plus, even if it's a simple charm, who'd want to use it, even as a 
joke? Maybe Fred and George can come up with some anti-Dark Mark 
where all of a sudden the skull sprouts flowers in its eyes and the 
snake turns into a butterfly...
 
> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," 
how 
> does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
> Budleigh Babberton?  

Because DD knows everything? Has spies in all sorts of places? Or 
maybe we just shouldn't worry about it.
 

> 
> 6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when 
> he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may 
still 
> be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already 
> being spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you 
> think it may play important role in the ending? Do you think it 
> already played the important role in the beginning, but we may not 
> know about it yet?
> What do you think?

Well, the gang did find that bottle when cleaning 12 Grimmauld Place 
in OotP that Harry thought contained blood.  Maybe Harry was right, 
but the blood is dragon's blood and not human blood, which I think 
is what Harry thought.  Perhaps one of the 12 uses for dragon's 
blood is to grease old lockets to make them open.   


 
> 7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a year", 
how 
> does he know about Dumbledore's injury? Is there any significance 
> that he describes the reason for the injury basically the same way 
> Snape describes it to Bella in "Spinner's end"?
> 
> Horace's words are, "Reactions not what they were, I see." 
> 
> Snape, in the relevant part of conversation, says basically the 
same 
> thing: "He has since sustained a serious injury because his 
> reactions are slower than they once were." ? p.31. (US.ed).

My first thought was that Horace simply seized on something to 
gently needle DD about.  I thought of it as an indication that 
though Horace's appearance and mannerisms suggest an indolent, self-
indulgent sort, that he's still quick on his feet and can connect 
the dots pretty well.  

 
> 8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned 
about 
> Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

No, as DD didn't show any upset I figured Slughorn accepted that at 
face value.  
 
> 
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I 
mean, 
> particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
> anything about him on the HPFGU. 

I liked him, simply because he tranformed himself into an 
overstuffed chair. (Maybe if he really wanted to throw Harry and DD 
off, he should have turned himself into something more delicate, 
like a Chippendale chair.)  I did find the way he talked about 
collecting people and developing connections to be a little off-
putting, but, on the scale of nasty behavior we've seen perpetrated 
by HP characters, this one seems relatively harmless.

> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents 
even 
> in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here 
Harry 
> meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother 
> very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about 
> Lily. What do you think about it?

I was not at all surprised, because that's the course JKR has set 
for Harry, however increasingly unbelievable I personally find it at 
this point in the series. But, in this particular situation, it felt 
more natural to me because Harry had just met Slughorn, there was an 
element of secrecy to the meeting, the atmosphere is still redolent 
with the idea of DEs lurking in corners, so I'm not totally 
surprised that Harry wouldn't leap into a discussion of his mother 
with Slughorn right at the start of their association.

Plus Slughorn's mention of Sirius as part of a pair he wished he'd 
been able to collect was jarring to Harry, so I think that would 
also play into his not wanting to discuss his mother.  He might have 
felt that Slughorn was going to turn Lily into a commodity, too.

Marianne








From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 13:38:40 2005
From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:38:40 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <12e.6add2f16.30b41de6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dlv710+3n2h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143343

> Julie:
> This is a bit ridiculous, and I don't mean to be insulting. But it  does
> seem that way to me. Snape and Harry were engaged in a duel.
> *Neither* of them suddenly stopped and said "Wait! An innocent
> animal is dying and I must save him!" And it doesn't really matter
> if Snape was blocking Harry's spells, because Harry could  have turned
> and run toward Hagrid's hut at *any* time 

Me now: Oh, I agree it's very, very far from a Key Plot Point or the
Massive Sole Indicator of Anyone's Loyalty. Just an offhand comment
inspired by another offhand comment... although I would note that
Snape does disarm Harry and then knock him down. Harry was not in a
position to help Fang. Snape was, but he didn't. It's not the crux of
anyone's character or any plot element. It's just the last nail in
Snape's coffin for me.

JMO,
hekatesheadband

Because the sorting hat is really Bono.






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 14:37:44 2005
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:37:44 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlt5jj+lb2f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvafo+nj5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143344

> > Alla:
> 
> > Again, I interpret " vicarious retribution" as retribution for 
> > something bad which character did, but terms of the story will 
not 
> > let the author punish the character directly.
> 
> a_svirn:
> And how do you interpret the word *vicarious*?  
> 
> >Alla: 
> > Let's look at Dudley. Hagrid indeed gave him a pig tail because 
he 
> > was mad at Vernon ( quite deservingly, I'd say, but of course 
> Hagrid 
> > should have done it to Vernon), BUT I can also interpret Hagrid 
> > doing to Dudley as carmic retribution for all those years 
> of "Harry 
> > hunting" Dudley and gang engaged in.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't know about "karmic", but in this instance "vicarious" would 
> be a perfectly right term. Because Hagrid used Dudley vicariously: 
> as a substitute for Vernon.

Ginger adds, as a clarification:

I kind of coined the phrase "vicarious retribution" as Alla applies 
it.  To put it in a nutshell, poetic justice is within the story.  
Vicarious retribution is for the reader.

VR is like Dudley and the pig's tail.  He didn't do anything to 
deserve the pig's tail from Hagrid, but we the readers know that he's 
been a nasty little prick to Harry for the last decade.  He gets 
what's coming to him, not for the situation at that moment, but for 
what he has done for the last decade.  

That's also karmic (as I understand it), but the general idea behind 
VR is more pointed at the reader than the character.  We know Dudders 
is a prat, so we (at least those of us who like comeuppance humour) 
will get a kick out of it.  It is there more for us than to move the 
story along or anything like that.  

We get the vicarious thrill that there has been retribution done for 
the previous misdeeds of the character, whether that person deserved 
it at that moment or not.  

Does that make it clear?  The three do have a lot of overlap.

Not sure that added anything, but just in the interest of 
clarification.
Ginger, hoping everyone has a wonderful day, unless they have other 
plans.






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 14:59:51 2005
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:59:51 -0000
Subject: dragon blood (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn)
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvbp7+jijs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143345

Alla wrote (in the questions for her well-done chapter discussion):
> 6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when 
> he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still 
> be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already 
> being spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you 
> think it may play important role in the ending? Do you think it 
> already played the important role in the beginning, but we may not 
> know about it yet?
> What do you think?

Ginger:
Ooh, ooh, pick me!

I posted elsewhere that I had a theory that dragon's blood may have 
healing powers.  Remember back in OoP when Hagrid used it on a black 
eye he got from Grawp?  It wondered me back then because I have heard 
of beefsteak being used, and wondered why he was using such an 
expensive cut of meat.  We hear Sluggy talk of how expensive the 
blood is, and the twins have their new dragonhide jackets (treating 
themselves as business is so good), so why not settle for plain old 
beef?  

In response, someone (who I think may be on this list, in which case 
I'll let him/her speak for self) noted that the dragon steak was 
green, but Sluggy's dragon blood was red.  

That same someone also noted that the twins were making shield charms 
shortly after getting the jackets.  I thought that was interesting as 
well.  

Back to Sluggy, I don't doubt that being on the run has had a 
negative influence on his cash flow.  Or at least on his receiving 
gifts.  He just may need to be that frugal at this point.  It is also 
possible that in laying low he doesn't want to waste anything he may 
need that would require his wandering about in WW public.  

Whether or not it is still good after being spilled would, I suppose, 
depend for what one intended to use it.  It may not work as well in 
potions, but one could still use it to fake an injury, say if one 
wanted to pretend to fall off of a tower and needed some blood 
artfully dripping from one's mouth.  Or something like that.

Ginger, who thinks "furnituremorphagus" is the funniest thing she has 
read all week.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 15:18:28 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:18:28 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlvafo+nj5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvcs4+pg1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143346

> Ginger adds, as a clarification:
> 
> I kind of coined the phrase "vicarious retribution" as Alla 
applies 
> it.  To put it in a nutshell, poetic justice is within the story.  
> Vicarious retribution is for the reader.
> 
> VR is like Dudley and the pig's tail.  He didn't do anything to 
> deserve the pig's tail from Hagrid, but we the readers know that 
he's 
> been a nasty little prick to Harry for the last decade.  He gets 
> what's coming to him, not for the situation at that moment, but 
for 
> what he has done for the last decade. 

a_svirn:
I understand what you are saying, but I simply can't bring myself to 
accept the term. Because vicarious retribution for a reader would 
mean a reader with a pig's tail. 

You seem to interpret "vicarious" as referred to the instrument of 
justice rather than to a person that is being punished. For one 
thing it's wrong? in the Bible and elsewhere it means `someone 
enduring punishment for someone else', like when God visited sins of 
the fathers on their children. For another thing it's confusing ? 
does it mean that Harry should have been the one to transform 
Dudley? As a sort of comeuppance humour it doesn't make any 
difference, while from the ethic standpoint it would have been only 
slightly better if he did it on purpose. 

> Ginger:
> We get the vicarious thrill that there has been retribution done 
for 
> the previous misdeeds of the character, whether that person 
deserved 
> it at that moment or not.  

a_svirn:
But isn't *any* thrill we get from a book *vicarious* in that sense? 
I mean, it's not like  *we* are the ones who are being loved, hated, 
kissed and avenged? 







From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 15:41:16 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:41:16 -0000
Subject: locket horcrux
Message-ID: <dlve6s+1g32@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143347

*coming up from lurkdom*

This may have already been discussed, but in OoP, when Harry and 
everyone are cleaning out the glass cupboards, they find aheavy gold 
locket.  Any chance that could be the real horcrux?  It never says 
they threw it away, but that Kreacher kept trying to smuggle things 
out to his little nest.  I'm just trying to think if we have seen or 
been introduced somehow to that horcrux.  Maybe Regulus (if RAB is 
him, I think it is) hid it the last time he visited home.  I don't 
know, I have so many thoughts on horcruxes swimming around in my head, 
and I thought maybe someone else had some ideas.  Thanks for any 
help...

Alora :)






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 22 16:30:07 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:30:07 -0000
Subject: timeline Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dlv10p+tq18@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvh2f+f8ha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143348

Potioncat:
> So, do you think all 4 chapters are the same night? Or do you think 
1&2 
> are one night with 3&4 a week later? I don't think JKR is bamboozling 
> anything, I just don't think it's clear and I think both are 
possible. 
> For them to be the same night, she actually does a bit of time 
turning, 
> that is, chapter 3 would start not at the end of chapter 2, but at 
the 
> same time as chapter 1....I think. I don't have a strong opinion on 
> which is more likely.

Ceridwen:
I know you didn't ask me, but I think all four chapters are on the same 
night (and going into the stay at the Weasleys as well).  I think what 
JKR is doing, is going from the least-known, the Other Minister, Fudge, 
and Scrimgeour, to people we know (Snape) or have met (the Black 
sisters), then down to our POV character, Harry.  Like a spiral 
starting at the outer edges and working its way in.  Just my opinion.

Ceridwen.







From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 16:43:07 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:43:07 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
Message-ID: <dlvhqr+eh9g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143349

I had a thought this morning and although I have not thought it 
completely through, I decided to post it.

We know from PoA that the DEs knew that Peter was a spy.  

"You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters . . . Sounds like 
they think the double-crosser double-crossed them . . . " (Am. ver. p. 
368)

So, he was probably part of the /circle/ (literally) of supporters 
that Voldemort would call to him (like in the graveyard).  There was a 
place for Snape too (the one he thought had left him forever).  So 
that means, like all the other DEs (loyal or not), Snape knew Peter 
was the spy.

That given, I am a little confused about why Sirius was believed to be 
a spy.  Did they think there was two spies working on the same thing?  
Did Snape think Sirius went after Peter to kill him because Peter had 
caused the downfall of Voldemort? Or did Snape, like the others, think 
that it was Peter who went after Sirius (out of grief?) and got 
killed?  Seems to me that Snape must have known that Sirius was 
innocent.  Or at the very least, Snape knew Peter had been the 
betrayer, not Sirius.  I can believe that Snape thought Sirius was 
guilty of killing the muggles and Peter.  But Snape, as a DE, must 
have known Peter was the one to give information to Voldemort.  

Although I am really hoping to see a turn for the good in Snape in the 
7th book, I am a little disappointed to think that Snape knew about 
Peter, and yet the teachers in the school believed Peter to be 
innocent.  Did Snape tell DD otherwise and DD kept this information to 
himself?  Or did Snape not share this information because he wanted 
Sirius to be killed/dementor-kissed?  If Snape withheld this 
information, surely DD figured out Snape knew about Peter . . . And 
even if Snape told DD and DD kept the info to himself . . . after all 
of what happened in PoA, Snape should have told the minister that 
Black was not the one who got James and Lily killed.  Why didn't he?


Any ideas?   

Ginny343







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 22 17:20:00 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:20:00 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvk00+nndq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143350

Alla:
> 
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 
Chapter 
> 4,Horace Slughorn.

Ceridwen:
Alla, wonderful recap of the chapter!  Thanks!

> QUESTIONS.
> 
> 1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
> Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
> attacked tonight."
> Harry: "Why not, sir?"
> "You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
>  Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
>  "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
> stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 

Ceridwen:
I agree with everyone else who thought the quote from chapter 26 was 
an echo, and a symbolic passing of the mantle.  Apparently, in 
Dumbledore's opinion, Harry has learned enough that he is able to be 
the strong wizard of the pair at this point.  It's also necessity 
that he grow to be that strong wizard, as DD is debilitated by the 
potion and its ordeal.  He is in bad shape, and in need of healing.  
I think it also indicates that Harry passed some sort of test in the 
cave to Dumbledore's satisfaction.  It was Harry using his blood to 
open the secret door instead of Dumbledore as it had been when they 
went in, and Harry supporting Dumbledore (literally) when Dumbledore 
had been supporting Harry (figuratively) through the entire book.  In 
chapter four, Harry doesn't need to exert himself, he's leaning on 
Dumbledore, being transported by him, and standing at his side as an 
apprentice.  In ch. 26, Harry exerts himself so DD doesn't have to, 
and stands at Dumbledore's side as a strong right arm.  The words 
echoing from the beginning of the book only serve to spotlight the 
transition.

Alla:
> Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?
> 
> 2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
> dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
> enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that 
Harry 
> had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for 
> Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in 
> order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In other 
> words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of the connection during 
> OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was not? How does Dumbledore 
> know that Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against Harry?

Ceridwen:
Someone else quoted the passage from the Occlumency lessons, so I 
can't add to that.  But I believe Dumbledore is implying that, after 
the disaster at the Ministry, when LV attempted to use the connection 
to his advantage and had some of his DEs captured and taken off to 
Azkaban, he re-thought that strategy and decided it was best for his 
plans to simply shut the connection down.

Alla:
> 3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to 
set 
> the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he muttered. "Knew 
> there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had time anyway" 
> I realize that I am missing something obvious here, but it bugs me 
> nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no 
> connections with Death Eaters at all? I am guessing that since 
> Winky  was accused of doing so in GoF, the answer is probably yes, 
> but the suggestion  that a house elf had done it was met with such 
> disbelief that maybe not  anybody could do it? What do you think?

Ceridwen:
I thought the disbelief came from the idea of an elf being educated 
enough to use a wand.

I think the Dark Mark would necessarily be simple enough for witches 
and wizards with a wide range of competency to cast the thing, since 
I get the impression that LV isn't always around when it needs to be 
set.  I would imagine that it's based on something they learned how 
to do while at Hogwarts, a signalling spell perhaps.  The 
particulars, skull head, twining snake, could be learned from other 
DEs, or figured out on their own, if the witch or wizard had trouble 
with the fine points of the spell.  I also imagine that Slughorn is 
more than competent enough to be able to cast a Dark Mark, or any 
other pattern he chose.  While he isn't quite DD's age, he can be 
said to be his contemporary.

Alla:
> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how 
> does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
> Budleigh Babberton?

Ceridwen:
I think Dumbledore was keeping an eye on Slughorn.  I think he must 
have decided this when he saw that the diary was a horcrux back in 
Harry's year two.  As a friend and contemporary, fellow teachers as 
they once were together, he might have kept up a correspondence in 
some way or another as well, while the former Slug Club members 
didn't have that 'in'.  But, I do think Dumbledore purposely kept 
tabs on Slughorn's movements after realizing about the diary, because 
he knew that, sooner or later, LV would remember Slughorn and could 
go after him.

(I also think that Spinner's End is in Budleigh Babberton, though 
it's pretty well been proven that BB isn't anywhere near the mill 
towns of the north, just my own idea that Snape was keeping an eye on 
Slughorn for DD, and possibly for LV as well)

Alla:
> 5. When I was preparing the questions for this chapter discussion, 
I 
> could not shake the feeling that I am having Mark Evans de ja vu. 
> Why? Because I started seeing symbolism where JKR probably had no 
> intention to write anything symbolic. Nevertheless, when Albus asks 
> Slughorn whether he needs his assistance in cleaning up and 
Slughorn 
> answers positively, I for some reason saw the possible 
foreshadowing 
> of Gryffindor and Slytherin cooperation. Am I seeing things? 
>  "They stood back to back, the tall thin wizard and the short round 
> one, and waved 
> their wands in one identical sweeping motion."

Ceridwen:
I like that take on it.  Thinking about it, I think that what we're 
seeing in this chapter is the echo of how things were before LV's 
rise, and the way they could be again.  Dumbledore and Slughorn 
represent cooperation in the past, if they represent anything at all 
here, but the past can hold out hope for the future.

Alla:
> 6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when 
> he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still 
> be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already 
> being spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you 
> think it may play important role in the ending? Do you think it 
> already played the important role in the beginning, but we may not 
> know about it yet?
> What do you think?

Ceridwen:
Someone else mentioned that it might not be good for potions use now, 
but it can still be used for the sort of charade for which Slughorn 
used it.  Even dusty old blood can be smeared again.  Slughorn at 
that point is not planning on coming to Hogwarts, at least that's 
what he says, and that's how it seems until he has his change of 
heart.  If he's going to move on, he'll need more blood for yet 
another 'attack' scene.

I don't know if dragon's blood has any importance other than being 
something that Muggles definitely don't use, seperating the Magical 
world by this device.  But, as everyone keeps saying, we don't know 
the twelve uses of dragon's blood.  It could be some sort of sealer 
on ancient spells, like Lily's 'blood magic' (another reference to 
blood, though not dragon's blood).  I think we'll just have to wait 
and see, hard as it is.


> 7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a year", how 
> does he know about Dumbledore's injury? Is there any significance 
> that he describes the reason for the injury basically the same way 
> Snape describes it to Bella in "Spinner's end"?
> 
> Horace's words are, "Reactions not what they were, I see." 
> 
> Snape, in the relevant part of conversation, says basically the 
same 
> thing: "He has since sustained a serious injury because his 
> reactions are slower than they once were." ? p.31. (US.ed).

Ceridwen:
He can see the injury.  Harry notices it right off, and Slughorn is 
no less observant than Harry.  Dumbledore makes no secret of it, 
waving his hands around in the scene as if nothing's wrong.  Slughorn 
asks if Dumbledore's slowing down, because it would be unusual for 
Dumbledore to sustain such an injury ordinarily.  Slughorn has 
already retired, he's accustomed to the complaints of advancing age, 
and just thinks Dumbledore's finally succumbing, I think.  It's a 
reasonable assumption to make at Dumbledore's age, so of course 
Slughorn, Snape and Dumbledore all use it.  It seems to make sense.

Alla:
> 8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned 
about 
> Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

Ceridwen:
Dumbledore seems to be managing just fine with the injury, and he 
doesn't follow through with Slughorn's initial lead on the subject.  
So, it's a closed subject to Dumbledore.  As a mannerly gentleman of 
a different era, Slughorn doesn't press, at least not in front of 
Harry.

Alla:
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean, 
> particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
> anything about him on the HPFGU.

Ceridwen:
I thought he was a bit old-fashioned.  Innocent, in the way that 
people were when they thought they were the center of the universe 
and saw nothing wrong with that.  If he were a Muggle, I would have 
expected him to go on fondly about Empire, instead of collecting the 
Black brothers and Lily's skill though she's a Muggle-born.  He was 
almost like many of the many old ladies I knew as a child, so I liked 
him well enough, respectfully keeping my distance, and trying not to 
smell lavender in the room.  *g*

Alla:
> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents 
even 
> in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here 
Harry 
> meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother 
> very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about 
> Lily. What do you think about it?

Ceridwen:
I agree with everyone who said Harry doesn't know Slughorn yet.  
Also, he did make that comment about her being good despite being a 
Muggle-born, so Harry may not want to hear such qualifying while 
hearing about his mother.  I notice Slughorn doesn't repeat that 
mistake later in the book when he talks about Lily.

Carol:
> Does anyone besides me think that the overstuffed chair
> into which Dumbledore poked his wand showed signs of magical
> concealment? If not, how would he know that Horace had transfigured
> himself into *that* particular chair? And if so, is this little
> incident a foreshadowing of the magical concealment motif (the ring
> and the locket) later in the book?

Ceridwen:
I thought at first that it was Dumbledore's ability to pick up on 
magical residue.  Then, I thought that maybe this is the usual sort 
of thing for Slughorn to transform into.  He and Dumbledore have 
known each other for many years and Dumbledore would know his 
habits.  It could go either way for me at this point.  If Slughorn 
pulls the same scenario in book 7 for whatever reason (and maybe even 
transforms Harry or another DA member into a Chippendale hutch? 
wouldn't that be a hoot?), then it's probably just his usual schtick.

Ceridwen.






From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Nov 22 17:24:22 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:24:22 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dlvhqr+eh9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvk86+ir07@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143351

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> I had a thought this morning and although I have not thought it 
> completely through, I decided to post it.
> 
> We know from PoA that the DEs knew that Peter was a spy.  
> 
> "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters . . . Sounds 
like 
> they think the double-crosser double-crossed them . . . " (Am. ver. 
p. 
> 368)
> 
> So, he was probably part of the /circle/ (literally) of supporters 
> that Voldemort would call to him (like in the graveyard).  There 
was a 
> place for Snape too (the one he thought had left him forever).  So 
> that means, like all the other DEs (loyal or not), Snape knew Peter 
> was the spy.

c: I don't believe anyone knew about Peter back in 1980/1981 as being 
a spy for Voldemort - it doesn't seem that way in the books.  Also, 
since Voldy kind of mistrusts his DE's, he probably kept them in the 
dark about their roles.  In GoF, when Snape is accused of being a DE, 
he wasn't labeled as a spy, just a DE.

But because of the Order of the Phoenix, I would think that Peter's 
role would be kept hush-hush.  His name never, as far as we have been 
privy to, came up in an court/trial scenes as being a Death Eater.

> 
> That given, I am a little confused about why Sirius was believed to 
be 
> a spy.  Did they think there was two spies working on the same 
thing?  

c:I don't think they thought there were two spies - I think that 
since Sirius was supposed to be the Secret Keeper and everyone knew 
it and then James & Lily are found by Voldemort, people believed that 
Sirius betrayed them(not necessarily a spy, mind you) and since James 
and Lily were dead and Peter assumed dead, who was going to believe 
Sirius?

> Did Snape think Sirius went after Peter to kill him because Peter 
had 
> caused the downfall of Voldemort? 


c: Snape didn't know about Peter in the Shack.  He followed Lupin 
because a) Lupin forgot his drink that evening and b) was curious.  
He didn't know the children were in the Shack, or Sirius when he 
started out.

 > 7th book, I am a little disappointed to think that Snape knew 
about 
> Peter, and yet the teachers in the school believed Peter to be 
> innocent.


c:I don't think Snape knew Peter's role with Voldemort until AFTER 
PoA & BEFORE GoF.  Hence, I don't think there is anything to be 
disappointed about :-)


> of what happened in PoA, Snape should have told the minister that 
> Black was not the one who got James and Lily killed.  Why didn't he?

c:At that point and time, Snape still believed Sirius was the Secret 
Keeper who betrayed James & Lily - no one told him otherwise (or at 
least, someone with creditability)   Dumbledore most likely filled 
Snape in after the scene in the Hospital Ward.

colebiancardi
 






From chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 04:50:15 2005
From: chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com (chewbacca98407)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:50:15 -0000
Subject: Hermione's role (Was: Teaching Harry)
In-Reply-To: <dlt6s9+agnj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlu827+u799@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143352

Barb Roberts wrote:
> > <snip> Harry won't be the one reading runes et al., it will be
> > others... we are talking Team!Harry.  

Carol responds:
> And what about poor Ron? Is he just going to be the loyal 
> sidekick who knows how to play chess (and Quidditch, if the Twins 
> aren't around)?  I'm not by any means denigrating the virtues of 
> courage and loyalty, which Ron displays in abundance, but I'm 
> wondering what particular talents he can contribute to the search for 
> Horcruxes and whatever else Team!Harry has to do on the road to Mt. 
> Doom, erm, the destruction of Voldemort. 


chewbacca thinks: Ron's watch that he received for his birthday 
bears a likeness for a certain watch that we see DD checking in the 
opening chapters of book one.  The planets around the edges etc. put 
me in mind of time-turners. Could be that we have to go back and 
find out what happened in the "missing 24 hrs." May be important to 
his Horcrux hunt, or maybe not. 

chewy-hopes it was his birthday, and not Christmas.  I can't get to 
my copy of HBP at this moment.









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 18:13:18 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:13:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dlv6bd+dgoi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvn3u+kmbt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143353

Marianne wrote:

> As Betsy said, it [the Dark Mark] doesn't seem like it's such a big
deal - just a green glittering thing in the sky. Sort of like a
permanent firework. I'd suspect, with no canon to support me, that the
spell or charm for this might be connected with having the Dark Mark
on one's arm, if for no other reason than that this would be another
symbolic trapping for use by the DEs. Not because it's difficult,  but
because it's another weapon in their arsenal to set themselves apart
from others and to because it is something that everyone who sees it
will associate with them.  I see it as somewhat analogous to people
who scrawl swaztikas on synagogues.
> 
> Plus, even if it's a simple charm, who'd want to use it, even as a
joke? Maybe Fred and George can come up with some anti-Dark Mark where
all of a sudden the skull sprouts flowers in its eyes and the snake
turns into a butterfly...
>

Carol responds:
We're told in OoP that only Death Eaters know how to cast it, so it
may involve something more than simply knowing the words to the spell,
just as using your Patronus to send a message seems to involve
something more than knowing the formula "Expecto Patronum." In any
case, I think it's significant that the spell required to cast the
Dark Mark is "Morsmordre," a pseudo-Latin phrase meaning "to bite
death." The connection between this phrase and the name "Death Eater"
is very clear; casting the Dark Mark in essence identifies you as a
Death Eater.

Also, it's not just a glittering green firework; it's a skull with a
serpent tongue protruding from it, Voldemort's mark, identical to the
mark on the Death Eaters' arms except for its color. The skull
signifies death and the snke tongued suggests the connection of
Voldemort to Salazar Slytherin as a Parselmouth. (It reminds me of the
Basilisk coming out of the mouth of the statue of Salazar Slytherin in
CoS.) The color is no doubt the same venomous green as the blast of
light from the Avada Kedavra curse, Nagini, and the potion (poisoned
memory?) in the cave. 

I think the Dark Mark is meant to be evil in itself or at least to
signify evil. I can't imagine a good person wanting to cast it for any
reason, especially since it suggests that someone has been murdered by
the Death Eaters. Sending it up would bring the Aurors, just as a
false alarm in the RW brings the police or the fire department, and in
times like those the WW is experiencing, it would be a very good way
to get yourself arrested. Just knowing the curse and being willing to
cast it would be regarded as evidence that you're a Death Eater. (Stan
Shunpike was imprisoned for less.)

I don't think that the analogy of scrawling a swastika in a synagogue
is quite accurate because the whole purpose of the Dark Mark is to
convey terror. (Barty Jr. used it to show his loyalty, to send the
message to the other Death Eaters that a loyal Death Eater was out
there, but the usual message is to show that a murder has been
committed.) To me it seems more like the mark of a terrorist
organization to show that the terrorists, as a group, are responsible
for a particular death. It erases the individual identity of the
perpetrator, making him the anonymous agent of the organization or its
leader. To cast it is, IMO, to mark yourself as the willing servant
and agent of Lord Voldemort. It's quite possible, as you suggest, that
only those who have the Dark Mark burned into their arms can cast it.
And, as you say, it's "another weapon in their arsenal," not, IMO, a
spell that any witch or wizard on the side of good would cast for any
reason even if he or she knew how to do it.

For that reason, I'm very uncomfortable with Slughorn's casual
attitude toward the Dark Mark as simply a detail that he missed.

I wouldn't put it past Fred and George to cast a parody of the Dark
Mark, maybe pink and fuzzy like Umbridge's cardigan with a normal
tongue doing a Peeves-style raspberry, but they would have to alter
the spell to do so. I can't imagine them casting or wanting to cast
the real thing, especially since their uncles were murdered by Death
Eaters when they were small, and they should understand the
significance of the mark even if they don't remember the event itself.

Carol









From hg_skmg at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 15:41:16 2005
From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:41:16 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlve6s+338l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143354

hg:
I've been looking forward to this discussion.  I read the summary and 
the other responses, but for purposes of space, I'll respond only to 
the questions themselves.  My take on things seems to be different 
from most perspectives.
hg.

QUESTIONS. (Snipped for space.)

> 1. Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

I see it two ways: Either as a moment between Dumbledore in which 
the "weight of the world," so to speak, is passed from Dumbledore's 
shoulders to Harry's; or as a counter-point, in the context of the 
theory that Slughorn has assumed Dumbledore's identity for this foray 
to the cave.

> 2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
> dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
> enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that
> Harry had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary 
> for Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius 
> in order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In 
> other words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of the connection 
> during OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was not? How does 
> Dumbledore know that Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against 
> Harry?

One of the other (many) responders noted the possibility that this 
seems to be a contrived explanation from Dumbledore, and I'm 
considering that myself, as I also found it odd.  We might also 
speculate that if Voldemort is aware of Harry's awareness, he might 
be pretty cautious in this regard.  I do think Voldemort knew about 
the connection before the Ministry, and perhaps discovered more in 
his attempt to possess Harry.

> 3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to 
> set the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he 
> muttered. "Knew there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had 
> time anyway" Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no 
> connections with Death Eaters at all? 

I think this could be a set-up for the possibility of illusion and 
misdirection being employed in the tower scene at the end, which 
Slughorn has demonstrated he's quite adept with here in Chapter 4.  I 
don't think it indicates that Slughorn has ever had association with 
the Death Eaters.

 
> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how 
> does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
> Budleigh Babberton?  

I think Dumbledore has been trying very hard to find him for the 
entire year.  It seems that Slughorn is the person Dumbledore was 
attempting to hire in the summer pre-OoP -- that they met that 
summer, Dumbledore got the botched memory, and has been seeking him 
out ever since.  As to how -- I don't know how Dumbledore manages 
much of what he does.

 
> 5. When I was preparing the questions for this chapter discussion, 
> I could not shake the feeling that I am having Mark Evans de ja vu. 
> Why? Because I started seeing symbolism where JKR probably had no 
> intention to write anything symbolic. "They stood back to back, the 
> tall thin wizard and the short round one, and waved their wands in 
> one identical sweeping motion."

I don't think at ALL that it was unintentional symbolism here.  In 
fact, I think it's highly suggestive of a peer relationship between 
the two -- perhaps Slughorn is the closest to an "equal" for 
Dumbledore (as she discusses in the MN/LL interview) that we've ever 
seen.  It's clear that Slughorn has his character flaws and that 
Dumbledore is aware of them; however, I get the sense that Slughorn 
has the same informed perspective of his old friend.
Also, we see here that their spell-work is comparable, and that 
Slughorn is left-handed, and we see his eye color ("pale gooseberry," 
a shade of green).  Very deliberate, in my opinion.


> 6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when 
> he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still 
> be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already 
> being spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you 
> think it may play important role in the ending? Do you think it 
> already played the important role in the beginning, but we may not 
> know about it yet?

I don't think he can reuse dragon's blood that's contaminated with 
dust for a potion, and he's probably aware of that.  I think it's 
highly likely that the same dusty dragon's blood from the vial was 
used for effect on the body of Dumbledore at the end of the tower 
scene.


> 7. and 8. 
> Is there any significance that he describes the reason for the 
> injury basically the same way Snape describes it to Bella 
> in "Spinner's end"?  Horace's words are, "Reactions not what they 
> were, I see." Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* 
> unconcerned about Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

I don't think he knew about the injury prior to this meeting.  I 
think his relatively mild reaction is partly due to his confidence in 
Dumbledore's capabilities, partly due to his mistrust of Dumbledore's 
motive for visiting (when it must have required some good detective 
work to find him).  It's consistent with his reluctance to offer 
drinks, when other times, when he's relaxed and feeling in control of 
the situation, he offers drinks right away.

 
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean, 
> particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
> anything about him on the HPFGU. 

I was thrilled to read such a colorful character, especially 
discovering his connection to the backstory.  It seemed there was 
more to come through his introduction into the series.  


> 10. Here Harry meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to 
> like his mother very much and Harry is still not asking him any 
> questions about Lily. What do you think about it?

Harry and Slughorn are still sizing each other up.  They are both 
aware that Dumbledore has arranged this meeting with an intended 
purpose and expectations of their affect on one another.  It seems 
Harry is appropriately mistrustful.  Also, remember Slughorn is 
bringing up Sirius in the same breath, as well as Lily's suitability 
for Slytherin House.  Since Harry doesn't trust anything Slytherin, 
it's asking a lot to expect him to cozy up to Slughorn immediately.  
If that's not enough, then Dumbledore compounds things when they 
leave by warning Harry that he may be "collected."  I don't buy for a 
minute that Slughorn's motivation to be near to Harry is for that 
purpose: Harry "The Boy Who Lived" is a living reminder of Slughorn's 
loss and the guilt/remorse he must feel about his possible role in 
her death.  And he doesn't know that Harry's the Chosen One until 
Harry later tells him, in Hagrid's hut.

hg








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Tue Nov 22 17:14:46 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:14:46 -0000
Subject: RAB Revealed? / translations
In-Reply-To: <dlr8a1+t0dj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvjm6+g803@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143355

Speedy:
> > ...neither in the German nor the Spanish translation is the name 
> > Black translated into Schwarz for the German nor Negro in the 
> > Spanish translation.
> > 
> > In both translations the Blacks are the Blacks. And I know for 
> > sure that in the Spanish version the note is signed RAB.

Ceridwen:
> ...I was wondering about the alternate names for R.A.B. that Hermione 
> dug up.  How are Rosalind Antigone Bungs and Rupert 'Axebanger' 
> Brookstanton translated?  Do they also have the initials changed in 
> the Dutch and Norwegian, to preserve some sort of doubt about the 
> identity of R.A.B.?


MercuryBlue:
I can't see how they wouldn't be. Hermione went looking for R.A.B. 
and found Bungs and Axebanger, who are clearly dead ends, but came 
to her attention only because of their initials. If she was looking 
for R.A.S. or R.A.Z., like in the translations, people with the 
initials R.A.B. would be utterly ignored.






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 22 18:20:41 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:20:41 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
Message-ID: <BAY101-F33FE3AD573D45DB5D7ED6B91520@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143356

Good questions!  I can't wait to hear what others have to say.  :)


QUESTIONS.

>"You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.
>  Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
>  "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little
>stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you."

>Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

In the first it's DD who's the stronger wizard but I feel he's acknowledging 
that the baton has passed and now Harry is the stronger in his "I'm with 
you" statement.   I think that was the first time I'd realized that DD was 
definitely going to die and that it wasn't a hoax at all.

>2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the
>dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been
>enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that Harry
>had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for
>Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in
>order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful?

Oh yes, Voldermort knew the connection worked both ways after the 
Nagini/Arthur situation but at that time he was able to make it work for 
him.  Now he finds the connection inconvenient so shut it down.  I believe 
the connection will reopen in Book 7.

>3. Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have time to set
>the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he muttered. "Knew
>there was something  ah well. Wouldn't have had time anyway"
>I realize that I am missing something obvious here, but it bugs me
>nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who has no
>connections with Death Eaters at all?

I'm almost sure I read in one of the books that the only ones taught to use 
the dark mark are DE's but I can't find the quote now.  Since Slughorn was 
the head of Slytherin he may have been told by a former student (now a DE) 
how it was done but I'm not convinced.  This bothered me too.


>4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how
>does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of
>Budleigh Babberton?

DD has Aurors and other ministry people in the OOtP and is very friendly 
with most of the people who count in the WW.  I don't think anyone would 
balk at giving DD the address of someone he wanted to rehire.

>5. When I was preparing the questions for this chapter discussion, I
>could not shake the feeling that I am having Mark Evans de ja vu.
>Why? Because I started seeing symbolism where JKR probably had no
>intention to write anything symbolic. Nevertheless, when Albus asks
>Slughorn whether he needs his assistance in cleaning up and Slughorn
>answers positively, I for some reason saw the possible foreshadowing
>of Gryffindor and Slytherin cooperation. Am I seeing things?
>  "They stood back to back, the tall thin wizard and the short round
>one, and waved
>their wands in one identical sweeping motion."

I'd like to hear what others think about this but I don't trust Sluggy at 
all...  Maybe I'm just paranoid.  :-)

>6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when
>he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still
>be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already
>being spilled?

"Reparo, Harry muttered, pointing his wand at the broken pieces of china.  
They flew back together, good as new, but there was no returning the murtlap 
essence to the bowl" (OOtP ch. 15 pg 329 Scholastic)

Maybe Harry didn't know the correct spell and Slughorn does but to me, the 
dragon's blood is spilled and can't be reused...

>7 Horace's words are, "Reactions not what they were, I see."
>Snape, in the relevant part of conversation, says basically the same
>thing: "He has since sustained a serious injury because his
>reactions are slower than they once were."  p.31. (US.ed).

That's the first reason anyone would think of for a man of DD's age so it 
makes sense that both Snape and Slughorn would say so.

>8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned about
>Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

I think Slughorn is as curious as a cat - especially seeing the ring on DD's 
hand -  but doesn't really want to have his fears confirmed.  He knows the 
ring is Tom's and knows Tom asked about Horcruxes.  He can put 2+2 together 
as well as anyone but if he makes a big deal out of it then the jig is up 
and he'll be answering questions he'd rather not all night.  Easier to avoid 
the issue altogether.

>9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I mean,
>particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read
>anything about him on the HPFGU.

I wasn't sure about him... I'm still not.  I know this isn't going to make 
any sense but he reminded me of Peter Pettigrew in a clown costume and I 
can't for the life of me tell you why!  :-)

>10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents even
i>n those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here Harry
>meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother
>very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about
>Lily. What do you think about it?

We know he loves to hear stories about them, look thru the photo album 
Hagrid gave him and spent a lot of time in front of the Mirror of Erised 
just looking at them so it's not like he doesn't care about them at all.  I 
just think it's been drummed into him since he could talk that his parents 
were an off limits conversation so it doesn't occur to him to ask anyone 
even when the Dursleys aren't around.


PJ




Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from 
posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Tue Nov 22 17:17:39 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:17:39 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence))
In-Reply-To: <dlra1d+ni74@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvjrj+tkla@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143357

Jaimee :
> > ...Harry realizes that he is speaking parseltongue. What's odd to 
> > me, is that Dumbledore seems as if he too must understand the 
> > conversation, or wouldn't he need to ask Harry what Morfin is 
> > saying? 

Catlady:
> I can fantasize that Dumbledore drank a potion that gave him a
> temporary ability to understand Parseltongue in order to understand
> what Morfin was saying.


MercuryBlue:
I think there is something more likely.  When Dumbledore went to get the memory from Morfin, he also got a translation.







From hg_skmg at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 17:51:54 2005
From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:51:54 -0000
Subject: dragon blood (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn)
In-Reply-To: <dlvbp7+jijs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvlrq+e1rq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143358

Ginger:
> I posted elsewhere that I had a theory that dragon's blood may have 
> healing powers.  Remember back in OoP when Hagrid used it on a 
> black  eye he got from Grawp?  It wondered me back then because I 
> have heard of beefsteak being used, and wondered why he was using 
> such an expensive cut of meat.  We hear Sluggy talk of how 
> expensive the blood is, and the twins have their new dragonhide 
> jackets (treating themselves as business is so good), so why not 
> settle for plain old beef?  
>
> In response, someone (who I think may be on this list, in which 
> case I'll let him/her speak for self) noted that the dragon steak 
> was green, but Sluggy's dragon blood was red. That same someone 
> also noted that the twins were making shield charms shortly after 
> getting the jackets.  I thought that was interesting as well.  


hg:
Ginger, I'm pretty sure it was me, posting to you on another forum.  
I've been thinking about those jackets and discussing them on yet 
another forum.  I do think there's got to be some healing property to 
dragon's blood -- however, the steak on Hagrid's eye makes the blood 
in Slughorn's vial seem suspect, perhaps not dragon's blood at all -- 
to me, it may be more likely to assume that a Common Welsh Green, for 
example, might have green blood whereas another dragon, red.  I say 
this is more likely, because Dumbledore didn't question that it was 
indeed dragon's blood, and he should recognize it if he sees it.

I also think it'd be fairly easy for Hagrid to come by dragon's blood 
(also unicorn tail hair), but much more difficult for Slughorn, who'd 
have to go the less direct (Wizard retail) route.  And yes, less safe.


Ginger:
> It may not work as well in potions, but one could still use it to 
> fake an injury, say if one wanted to pretend to fall off of a 
> tower and needed some blood artfully dripping from one's mouth.  Or 
> something like that.

hg:
Oh, yes indeed.








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Tue Nov 22 17:55:22 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:55:22 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlt3vo+t4n4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvm2a+jbsv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143359

Carol:
> Forgive me, but your tone here (and elsewhere) is a bit harsh. 
> There's no need to get your back up when you disagree with someone 
> or when they disagree with you.

MercuryBlue:
My apologies. I don't mean to snap at people. I just find it 
aggravating when people don't step back and think it through, or 
double-check their facts, before drawing their conclusions.


CH3ed wrote:
> > > I really don't think the Sorting Hat is a horcrux. It seems 
> > > very unlikely that LV had learned how to make one before he 
> > > graduated and as far as we know he had had no access to it 
> > > after he did.
 
MercuryBlue responded:
> > The diary Horcrux, may I remind you, was created when he was
> > SIXTEEN. Nobody graduates until they're at least closing on 
> > EIGHTEEN.

Carol:
> It's true that the diary was *written* when Tom was sixteen (the
> memory that it contains is himself near the end of his fifth year 
> and he would have turned sixteen the previous January), but its 
> original purpose was to "continue Salazar Slytherin's noble work" 
> of weeding out "Mudbloods" using the Basilisk. It was not 
> originally a Horcrux, as *he did not know how to make one at that 
> time*.
>
> When he wrote the diary (placed the memory of himself in it), he 
> had not yet killed his father and grandparents, who were apparently 
> AK'd the following summer. He returned to school wearing the ring, 
> which could not have been a Horcrux or he would not have asked 
> Slughorn how to create one.

MercuryBlue:
Would you please explain what makes you think that Memory!Tom is 
separate from SoulFragment!Tom? That seems to be the main point of 
your argument, that Tom put the memory of his sixteen-year-old self 
into the diary, then went off and killed his dad and figured out how 
to make Horcruxes and attached a soul fragment to the diary too. I 
don't see how the memory is separate from the soul fragment, which 
does imply that Tom had both killed his family and figured out how 
to make Horcruxes before he hit seventeen. (Which, in point of fact, 
was in December.)


Carol:
> He *may* have discovered it the following summer (between his sixth 
> and seventh years), possibly by visiting Grindelvald (whose
> single Horcrux it appears that Dumbledore later destroyed)

MercuryBlue:
Dumb question: Why do you think Grindelwald made a Horcrux? My 
thought was he's famous only for being defeated by Dumbledore, and 
is utterly irrelevant now.


Carol:
> I've stated before that I think the creation of a Horcrux, being 
> Dark magic of the worst order, requires an elaborate ritual along 
> the lines of the restoration incantation or the Unbreakable Vow 
> <snip> I doubt very much if he could just point his wand at the 
> sorting Hat and cast a two-word spell like my invented "Creo 
> Horcruxum!" 

MercuryBlue:
Can we agree to disagree? It isn't likely that we'll find out which 
of us is right, after all.


Carol:
> Moreover, we've seen that the Sorting Hat has a mind of its own 
> over and above the "brains" of the four Founders poured into it 
> when the school was divided into four Houses. It's clearly not 
> influenced by Tom Riddle's thinking. (JKR says it has never been 
> wrong.) 

MercuryBlue:
JKR didn't actually say it's never been wrong, just that it is 
certainly sincere. So it honestly believes it has sent everyone into 
the best House for them, whether it's actually the best House for 
them or not.








From va32h at comcast.net  Tue Nov 22 18:02:50 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:02:50 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dlvk86+ir07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvmga+lg0p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143360

ginny343 wrote:
> > We know from PoA that the DEs knew that Peter was a spy.  
> > 
> > "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters . . . Sounds 
> > like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them . . . " 
> > (Am. ver. p. 368)
> > 
> > So, he was probably part of the /circle/ (literally) of 
> > supporters that Voldemort would call to him (like in the 
> > graveyard).  There was a place for Snape too (the one he thought 
> > had left him forever).  So that means, like all the other DEs 
> > (loyal or not), Snape knew Peter was the spy.


va32h: 
I don't think Peter was a DE when he sold out the Potters. I think 
his tip off about the Potters was his first deed for Voldemort. 
Peter says himself "what was to be gained by refusing him." To me, 
that sounds like Peter was confronted by Voldemort, and decided to 
jump ship at that moment, and hand over the Potters in exchange 
for...protection? power? respect? Who knows how a rat's mind works!
Snape does not necessarily have to know Peter was the one who 
betrayed the Potters - I think Voldemort keeps all his followers on 
a need-to-know basis. 


> > That given, I am a little confused about why Sirius was believed 
> > to be a spy.  Did they think there was two spies working on the 
> > same thing?  

va32h: 
Well, the people who think Sirius is the betrayer (not necessarily spy) are people who aren't in a position to know better. Fudge, Lupin, McGonnagal - they all believed Wormtail's cover story - 
accusing Sirius, faking his own death. Now Snape probably knows that 
Sirius never worked for Voldemort. But Snape loathes Sirius - he has 
no motivation to do Sirius any favors. 


> > Did Snape think Sirius went after Peter to kill him because 
> > Peter had caused the downfall of Voldemort? 

va32h: 
Snape follows Lupin into the shack, not Sirius. Snape suspects Lupin of helping Sirius get into Hogwarts - and that's what he expects to find when he gets to the shack - Sirius and Lupin, concocting plans.  

 
> > of what happened in PoA, Snape should have told the minister 
> > that Black was not the one who got James and Lily killed.  Why 
> > didn't he?

va32h: 
Snape hates Sirius. Snape doesn't care if Sirius' name and reputation are cleared or not. Snape wouldn't care if Sirius had his soul sucked out. One of the complexities of all the books is that sometimes characters who are on the "good" side, are still full of flaws, and still end up doing loathesome things. Snape may ultimately be working for the good side, but he still has a cruel streak a mile wide. 

va32h









From va32h at comcast.net  Tue Nov 22 18:19:42 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:19:42 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dlv09o+epd9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvnfu+cp64@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143361

lucianam73 wrote: 
> <snip> "...it could be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said 
> fiercely, now looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming 
> in the wand-light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with 
> me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'"
>
> That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
> short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in 
> the series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral 
> debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As 
> many as you can!  


va32h responds: 
What would you have Harry say instead "it could be me next, and if it is, I'm just gonna lay down and die"?

Harry is not saying "I'm going to kill as many Death Eaters as I 
can," he's saying "if it is me next - me who gets ambushed by a bunch 
of Death Eaters and faced with certain death, I am still going to 
fight the enemy." 

I am not up to speed on centuries of religious, ethical, and moral 
debate, so I can't comment intelligently on that. But I admit to 
being confused as to why it would be morally wrong to defend your 
own life, even if that does result in the loss of the life of your 
would-be murderer.  

va32h








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 22 20:02:30 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:02:30 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence))
In-Reply-To: <dlvjrj+tkla@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvtgm+tm7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143362


> Jaimee :
> > > ...Harry realizes that he is speaking parseltongue. What's odd to 
> > > me, is that Dumbledore seems as if he too must understand the 
> > > conversation, or wouldn't he need to ask Harry what Morfin is 
> > > saying? 

Potioncat:
Sorry I don't have the actual quote, but later in HBP DD tells Harry 
that even some good wizards can speak parseltongue. It's said in that 
sort of round about way that DD has of speaking. So, yes, I think DD 
speaks parseltongue. 







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 20:26:30 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:26:30 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dlvn3u+kmbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvutm+oqhv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143363

Alla:
"QUESTION.1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
attacked tonight."
Harry: "Why not, sir?"
"You are with me," said Dumbledore simply. 
Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
"I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 

Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?"


CH3ed:
Yep. I agree with Carol's interpretation that they symbolize the 
passing of the torch from DD to Harry being 'The Man.' I'm a bit 
uneasy about it, though, since Harry is not anywhere near where DD 
was magically (tho I think he has the potential to be as great a 
wizard, given enough time). I think the turning points for DD in his 
later 'evaluation' of Harry are the successful extraction of Slug's 
horcrux chat with LV memory ,and Harry forcing DD to drink the 
potion in the Cave(under DD's order, of course) against DD's (under-
influence) protests for mercy. After that I think it is clear to DD 
that Harry will do what it takes to get the job done.

Alla:
"Question 2: When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized 
the dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that Harry 
had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for 
Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in 
order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In other 
words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of the connection during 
OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was not? How does Dumbledore 
know that Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against Harry?"


CH3ed:
I think DD meant that LV finally realized that it is not safe 
getting into Harry's head after he got burnt by the love for Sirius 
at the MM. LV wouldn't have known of Harry's access until the attack 
on Arthur Weasley. He immediately penetrated Harry back (shown in 
Harry's sudden impulse to bite DD before taking the portkey to 
12GP). So LV knew of the connection and Harry's failed attempt at 
occlumency and probably thought LV was home free getting into 
Harry's head because Harry couldn't prevent it. Now Harry could just 
think of someone he loves like Sirius or Ron and Hermione and LV'd 
probably find Harry's head something of a hot seat. ;O) I think DD 
knew for sure LV has been staying away from Harry when Harry told 
him his head doesn't hurt anymore (and no 'nightmare visions' too).

Alla:
"Question 3: Horace Slughorn tells Dumbledore that he did not have 
time to set the Dark Mark over the House. "The Dark Mark," he 
muttered. "Knew there was something 
 ah well. Wouldn't have had 
time anyway" I realize that I am missing something obvious here, but 
it bugs me nevertheless. Can anybody set the Dark Mark? Anybody who 
has no connections with Death Eaters at all? I am guessing that 
since Winky was accused of doing so in GoF, the answer is probably 
yes, but the suggestion that a house elf had done it was met with 
such disbelief that maybe not anybody could do it? What do you 
think?"

CH3ed:
I don't quite know what to think but I believe Arthur's assertion 
that only current and ex- DEs would know the spell for it. This 
doesn't look good for Slug, tho I can still give him the benefit of 
a doubt and say maybe he meant that he could have done an imitation 
of a dark mark? 


Alla:
"Question 8: Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* 
unconcerned about Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?"


CH3ed:
I think he did seem not too concerned, he was likely more concerned 
than he showed. After all the big reason that made him accept the 
position at Hogwarts was to be under DD's protection from LV and his 
DEs (at least that's what appears to be at face value). Slug had 
known DD long enough to not make too much out of something that DD 
didn't want to discuss overtly, tho. 


Alla:
"Question 9: What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn? 
I mean, particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you 
read anything about him on the HPFGU. "


CH3ed:
I thought he was likable for a Slytherin... tho he was obviously a 
Slytherin, always looking after himself first. I agree with Harry's 
misgivings about Slug's stand on pure-blood issue. I think Slug is 
prejudiced deep down, but he also realizes that it is wrong so he 
over corrects for it (which is what tipped Harry off). I don't think 
he put as high a priority on blood as folks like the Malfoys, tho. 
Slug is more practical. He wants something from the people he hangs 
with so he would try to 'collect' you if he thinks you have the 
potential to be of service to him in the future (rich, famous, 
influential). So your ability and connection would rank higher on 
Slug's priority list than your blood status. 


Alla:
"Question 10: We know that Harry does not ask questions about his 
parents even in those rare situations when he has the chance to do 
so. Here Harry meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to 
like his mother very much and Harry is still not asking him any 
questions about Lily. What do you think about it?"


CH3ed:
I think Harry never believed that Slug is not prejudiced against 
muggle-born and so he didn't believe Slug was sincere when he 
professed his fondness of Lily. Harry is also aware of Slug's 
manipulative spider trait, so he just doesn't trust him enough to 
confide in him.


CH3ed thanks Alla for a very thorough and thoughtful job on Chapter 
4. :O)







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 20:33:42 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:33:42 -0000
Subject: Honeydukes Tunnel - Was:Re: 12 OWLs/CanOpener/....
In-Reply-To: <dlutj0+7545@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dlvvb6+e829@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143364

Ceridwen  wrote:
 "Just a thought: At the time the castle was built, could Hogsmeade 
have been within the Founders' protections? And if so, could it have 
been an escape route from the town into the castle in case of 
emergency? 
The times were supposedly dangerous, with Muggles out to get wizards, 
according to the story."


CH3ed:
I hadn't thought that Hogmeade could have been included to Hogwarts 
ground. :O) Interesting idea! It would make sense to have an escape 
route. But I would think it would be a route to escape out of the 
castle rather than in since the password protection is required to get 
in the tunnel from Hogwarts end, but not when you come in from 
Honeydukes(tho the entrance in the cellar is designed to be hard to 
find). 






From saturniia at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 21:01:10 2005
From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:01:10 -0000
Subject: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?  (Was Re: Snape-the Hero...)
In-Reply-To: <dlv710+3n2h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm00um+m9cj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143365

Hekatesheadband wrote:
>
> Harry was not in a position to help Fang. Snape was, but he didn't.
> It's not the crux of anyone's character or any plot element.
> It's just the last nail in Snape's coffin for me.


Saturniia:
Was he really in that position, though?  Was it really not the crux 
of a plot element?  Or was the Unbreakable Vow Snape made with 
Narcissa Black Malfoy still in action?  After all, the wording is as 
follows:

"Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to
fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?"

"And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?"

"And should it prove necessary
if it seems Draco will fail
will you
carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"


"And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?" 
is the part of the Vow that comes into play here.  Snape has watched 
over Draco, has completed Draco's task, but Draco is still in danger 
while they are on school grounds.  There are Ministry Aurors around, 
and even if Draco wouldn't get in trouble for the murder of 
Dumbledore, he'd still be held as a material witness and enemy 
informant, or maybe just tossed in jail because of his name.

In any case, the Vow was unfulfilled, therefore Snape was in no 
position to place Fang's life above Malfoy's and, by extension, his 
own.  It doesn't mean he'd have rescued Fang if he had the 
opportunity; in fact, I think he'd let the dog burn partly to keep 
his position as a Death Eater and partly to hurt Hagrid, for whom 
Snape holds no love.  However, at the time of the burning and Snape 
and Malfoy's flight from the school, *saving* Fang could've been the 
final nail in Snape's coffin.

~Saturniia

who thinks Snape may be a creep, but at least he's finally a 
consistent creep








From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Nov 22 21:36:03 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:36:03 -0000
Subject: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?  (Was Re: Snape-the Hero...)
In-Reply-To: <dm00um+m9cj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0303+i3df@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143366

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saturniia" <saturniia at y...> 
wrote:
 > In any case, the Vow was unfulfilled, therefore Snape was in no 
> position to place Fang's life above Malfoy's and, by extension, his 
> own.  It doesn't mean he'd have rescued Fang if he had the 
> opportunity; in fact, I think he'd let the dog burn partly to keep 
> his position as a Death Eater and partly to hurt Hagrid, for whom 
> Snape holds no love. 

where do you get the idea that Snape holds no love for Hagrid?  If 
anything, Hagrid is one of Snape's biggest cheerleaders  - and I have 
never read anything that shows that Snape doesn't like or dislike 
Hagrid.  Only Lockhart(who was an idiot) and Lupin(old grudges) were 
the two professors that Snape shows his dislike for.  Everyone else, I 
think Snape just rolls with it.

colebiancardi

 






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 22:28:44 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:28:44 -0000
Subject: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?  (Was Re: Snape-the Hero...)
In-Reply-To: <dm00um+m9cj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm062s+aksj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143367


> Hekatesheadband wrote:
> >
> > Harry was not in a position to help Fang. Snape was, but he didn't.
> > It's not the crux of anyone's character or any plot element.
> > It's just the last nail in Snape's coffin for me.
 
Saturniia:
 However, at the time of the burning and Snape 
> and Malfoy's flight from the school, *saving* Fang could've been the 
> final nail in Snape's coffin.


Aside from everything else--the fact that neither Harry nor Snape had
time to deal with Fang, given that they were fighting a duel at the
time; the fact that Snape was also trying to divert the other DE's
from attacking Harry, and hustle them off the grounds ASAP;  the fact
that the whole reason this was brought up was that Snape is described
as being in as much pain emotionally as Fang was physically-- aside
from all this-- dude, Snape just killed DUMBLEDORE in part to preserve
his cover.  He's not going to throw it away to save Hagrid's dog, and
I don't know if going around rescuing puppies is the best way to keep
up your hard-core DE rep.

In any event, I don't know if a simple 'accio Fang' would do it--
wouldn't that just yank Fang through the cabin walls?  I don't think
that would be very healthy either.

--Sydney, who is also an animal-lover, but within the bounds of reason
 







From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Tue Nov 22 22:55:26 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:55:26 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dlv09o+epd9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm07ku+1q9v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143368

<lucianam73 wrote:
> 
>  [Quoting HBP] <snipped>

> > That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, 
in 
> > short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in 
the 
> > series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral 
> > debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As 
many as you can!  


  
> Amiable Dorsai wrote:
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men 
to do nothing."  Edmund Burke
> 
> I see no other moral course, either for Harry or Dumbledore.  Do 
you?
>  

Lucianam:

I see the course of accepting the need to kill as their only option, 
not something to feel vengeful and proud of. I see two paragraphs 
overflowing with proudness and lack of 
questioning. 'Fierce', 'strong', 'gleaming eyes', 'approving pat on 
the back', 'true son' and 'take my hat off to you' leave no room to 
feelings of doubt, which would be normal considering who is 
speaking, about what he is speaking, and to whom he is speaking. Aka 
a teenager who has never killed anyone previously and therefore 
doesn't know how he really feels about it yet; talking about killing 
which I presume is no easy thing in any situation (I might be wrong 
about that but I hope not); addressing a public composed mostly of 
teenagers like himself and also children.

In my opinion those two paragraphs are offensive (to me, I know) 
because the killing problem wasn't treated as a problem at all, it 
was addressed way too briefly and that was it. Since in a previous 
book Harry spared Pettigrew's life and was told he did the right 
thing, I guess it's fair to suppose the books' take on the matter 
have changed. Well, because it's war now? Fine. Show me the war. 
Show me Harry fighting for his life and killing Death Eaters as he 
tries to save himself and his friends, but spare me the simplistic 
speech.

About Amiable Dorsai's quote, I remember (or don't, actually) a 
similar one from LotR. I'm not sure it's from the books, maybe it's 
from the movies (perhaps The Two towers)? Aragorn sees Eowin 
carrying a sword and asks her if the women of Rohan fight as well, 
or something like that. Eowin answers something like (wish I 
remembered the exact quote):

"Those who do not fight with the sword can still die by it."

That felt pretty heroic and adequate, because LotR has numerous war 
scenes and lots of its heroes are warriors. It's all too clear in 
LotR that in order to survive you gotta chop many orks' heads off. 
It even gets a litle sickening in the end of the second movie.

In my opinion, to talk about killing must be different from fighting 
and doing the actual killing. Possibly Harry can't make that 
distinction, being little more than a child, but Dumbledore is 
supposed to be wise. 

I don't think I have any more arguments on this, right now. I'm 
afraid I'm being tiresome.

Lucianam






From saturniia at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 22:42:48 2005
From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:42:48 -0000
Subject: He hates Hagrid?  (Was: Re: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?)
In-Reply-To: <dm0303+i3df@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143369

Colebiancardi:
> where do you get the idea that Snape holds no love for Hagrid?  If 
> anything, Hagrid is one of Snape's biggest cheerleaders  - and I 
have 
> never read anything that shows that Snape doesn't like or dislike 
> Hagrid.  Only Lockhart(who was an idiot) and Lupin(old grudges) 
were 
> the two professors that Snape shows his dislike for.  Everyone 
else, I 
> think Snape just rolls with it.

Saturniia:
I never meant to imply Snape dislikes Hagrid, I merely meant that he 
doesn't like him.  I'm not arguing semantics here; I honestly 
believe the two terms are different.  Like you said, "Snape just 
rolls with it", and to do that one needs either a high level of 
maturity or, if that is not present, apathy.  His holding on to a 
decades-old grudge and taking it out on the original target's child 
does not speak of maturity, and yes, everyone has their hot-button 
issues, but if it didn't hurt, one wouldn't react.  Therefore, I 
cast my vote for apathy.

I'll argue against the idea that Hagrid being one of Snape's biggest 
cheerleaders is because of Snape himself; there's no proof.  He's 
one of Dumbledore's biggest cheerleaders, so if Dumbledore trusts 
Snape, he will, too.  Beyond that, Snape's just a useful guy, and 
he's been a teacher at Hogwarts for what?  Fifteen years as of HBP, 
I believe.  Spending eight months a year for a decade and a half 
taking your meals with a person who doesn't give you a reason to 
hate him, who your boss and mentor trusts, is enough to make almost 
anyone like a man.  A kind soul like Hagrid would be especially 
susceptable.

~Saturniia

who also doesn't think Snape would be a "dog person", but knows she 
can't prove it








From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 23:25:25 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:25:25 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence))
In-Reply-To: <dlvtgm+tm7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm09d5+k0oa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143370

> Potioncat:
 So, yes, I think DD speaks parseltongue.

Goddlefrood:

You may well be right. Being a person who understands multiple 
languages (French, Fijian, Rotuman, German and Italian) without 
actually speaking them I add that it is possible that while 
Dumbledore can understand Parseltongue it does not mean that he 
necessarily speaks it.

If I recall correctly he asks Harry whether he can understand what 
the Gaunts are talking about and at the time the implication I took 
from that was that Dumbledore himself did not actually fully 
understand the exchanges in parseltongue, but he may have understood 
certain parts.

If it is the case of translation as sudggested then I find it 
probable that one of Dumbledore's instruments serves as a translator.

Dumbledore is of course renowned for speaking several other 
languages, including mermish.

Confused?

TTFN







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 23:38:33 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:38:33 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompetence))
In-Reply-To: <dm09d5+k0oa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0a5p+4ah4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143371

> Goddlefrood:
> 
> You may well be right. Being a person who understands multiple 
> languages (French, Fijian, Rotuman, German and Italian) without 
> actually speaking them I add that it is possible that while 
> Dumbledore can understand Parseltongue it does not mean that he 
> necessarily speaks it.
> 
> If I recall correctly he asks Harry whether he can understand what 
> the Gaunts are talking about and at the time the implication I 
took 
> from that was that Dumbledore himself did not actually fully 
> understand the exchanges in parseltongue, but he may have 
understood 
> certain parts.
> 

a_svirn:

On the other hand if one brandish a wand and a bloody knife while 
hissing malevolently it is not really all that difficult to get the 
massage one tries to convey. "You are not welcome" would be a polite 
version of it.






From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov 23 00:03:35 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:03:35 EST
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
Message-ID: <154.5d71209f.30b50bd7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143372

 
ginny343 wrote:
> > That given, I am a little confused about why Sirius was  believed 
> > to be a spy.  Did they think there was two spies  working on the 
> > same thing?  

va32h: 
Well, the  people who think Sirius is the betrayer (not necessarily spy) are 
people who  aren't in a position to know better. Fudge, Lupin, McGonnagal - 
they all  believed Wormtail's cover story - 
accusing Sirius, faking his own death. Now  Snape probably knows that 
Sirius never worked for Voldemort. But Snape  loathes Sirius - he has 
no motivation to do Sirius any favors.  




Julie:
Also, does Sirius actually have to be "working" for Voldemort to give
up the location? One reason he wanted Peter to be the Secret Keeper
was because if Voldemort tortured him he *wouldn't* be able to give
away the Potters' location. So Snape and everyone else might have
assumed Sirius gave up the location to save his own skin, without 
actually joining Voldemort's camp. (And if one were to assume he
did turn spy at that point, he still wouldn't have had the chance  to
work further for Voldemort since he was remanded to Azkaban almost
immediately after the Potters were killed.)
 
Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 23 00:05:17 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:05:17 -0000
Subject: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlvm2a+jbsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0bnt+4fhg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143373

Potioncat:
I'm not much of a Horcrux theory follower, so I can't speak to the 
issues that appeared earlier in this post. But I do want to add to 
these two comments, because Yes, JKR did say the Sorting Hat was 
never wrong: 
> Carol:
> > Moreover, we've seen that the Sorting Hat has a mind of its own 
> > over and above the "brains" of the four Founders poured into it 
> > when the school was divided into four Houses. It's clearly not 
> > influenced by Tom Riddle's thinking. (JKR says it has never been 
> > wrong.) 
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> JKR didn't actually say it's never been wrong, just that it is 
> certainly sincere. So it honestly believes it has sent everyone 
into 
> the best House for them, whether it's actually the best House for 
> them or not.

Potioncat:
I found this quote over at Quick Quotes Quill and I see I cut it off 
a little too quickly. The entire quote is at Quick Quotes under July 
2005.

>>>Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and 
MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Two," The Leaky 
Cauldron, 16 July 2005

>>Big Snip<<

ES: Has the sorting hat ever been wrong?

JKR: No.

ES: Really?

JKR: Mm-mm. Do you have a theory?

ES: I have heard a lot of theories.

JKR: [laugh] I bet you have. No. [laugh] Sorry.

MA: That's interesting, because that would suggest that the voice 
comes more from a person's own head than the hat itself -

JKR: [makes mysterious noise]

MA: And that maybe when it talks on its own it comes from -

JKR: The founders themselves.

MA: Yeah. Interesting. How much of a role are the<<<


Potioncat:
I've found I do better to ask for canon rather than attacking an 
idea. That way, if I'm right, I don't look like an insufferable know- 
it-all, and if I'm wrong I don't look like an idiot. (I do, however, 
sometimes look like a fool, and other times like Molly on a very bad 
day.)

Cheers,
Potioncat








From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov 23 00:20:01 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:20:01 EST
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
Message-ID: <22b.23472ab.30b50fb1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143374

 


> Julie:
> This is a bit ridiculous, and I don't mean to  be insulting. But it  does
> seem that way to me. Snape and Harry  were engaged in a duel.
> *Neither* of them suddenly stopped and said  "Wait! An innocent
> animal is dying and I must save him!" And it doesn't  really matter
> if Snape was blocking Harry's spells, because Harry  could  have turned
> and run toward Hagrid's hut at *any* time  

Hecatesheadband: Oh, I agree it's very, very far from a Key Plot Point  or the
Massive Sole Indicator of Anyone's Loyalty. Just an offhand  comment
inspired by another offhand comment... although I would note  that
Snape does disarm Harry and then knock him down. Harry was not in  a
position to help Fang. Snape was, but he didn't. It's not the crux  of
anyone's character or any plot element. It's just the last nail  in
Snape's coffin for me.






Julie again:
Just to be really picky here, the events went as follows: Harry
tries to Crucio Snape, and Snape knocks Harry down. Harry
rolls over and scrambles back up again as a Death Eater yells
"Incendio!" and Hagrid's house starts on fire. Hagrid bellows
"Fang's in there, yer evil--!" at which time Harry tries to Crucio
Snape again and Snape blocks it, yelling "No Unforgivables from
you, Potter!"--shouting over the rushing of flames, Hagrid's yells,
and the WILD YELPING of the trapped Fang. 
 
Okay, at this point, Harry *can* desert the fight with Snape and
help save Fang. He's not beating Snape anyway, and Snape is
only parrying Harry's spells, not keeping Harry there, so if Fang's
life is more important than getting revenge on Snape, then Harry
can make that choice. Instead, he throws yet another spell that 
Snape "lazily" deflects, and yells at Snape to "Fight back, you
coward!" (This is the first coward remark, not the second when
Snape becomes truly furious--that second one comes over a page
and a half later). 
 
Basically, Fang yelps in pain for THREE pages worth of  duelling
between Snape and Harry, and neither stops to worry about saving
the dog. But please don't think I'm castigating Harry here. Harry
is caught up in his emotions. Nothing but his hatred of Snape is
getting through to him. Just as Snape is caught up in escaping 
(whether as ESE/OFH to save his own skin, or as DDM to limit
any further damage or injuries inflicted by the DEs) and is ignoring
everything else. 
 
I interpret the whole scene as completely meaningless in judging
loyalty, decency, or general feelings about animals in either  Harry
or Snape, as they act essentially the same here. But that's me :-)
 
Julie
 
 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From casteldenisip at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 22 23:59:43 2005
From: casteldenisip at yahoo.com (ioana)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Voldemort - the child
Message-ID: <20051122235943.71924.qmail@web33111.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143375

  I was wondering why did Dumbledore want Voldemort to be a student at his new school. Is it because all of the wizard-kids go there or did Dumbledore realize his potential ? 
   
  While he was in school, nobody understood the kind of danger he was and they never actually tried to stop him (remember the episode when Hagrid got expel from Hogwarts school because of Voldemort). It seems like he was perfectly able to hide his true nature even from Dumbledore
   

Ioana






From saturniia at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 01:49:08 2005
From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:49:08 -0000
Subject: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dm0bnt+4fhg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0hqk+7b6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143376

> Potioncat:
> I found this quote over at Quick Quotes Quill and I see I cut it 
off 
> a little too quickly. The entire quote is at Quick Quotes under 
July 
> 2005.
> 
> >>>Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and 
> MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Two," The Leaky 
> Cauldron, 16 July 2005
> 
> >>Big Snip<<
> 
> ES: Has the sorting hat ever been wrong?
> 
> JKR: No.

<SNIP>


Saturniia: 
Okay, so we have it from the horse's... er... the author's mouth 
that the Sorting Hat is never wrong.  However, we do know the 
Sorting Hat's first decision can be vetoed.  Our canon proof?

Harry Potter himself!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Sorting Hat may never be wrong, but 
that little voice the characters hear when the hat's on their head 
can be swayed by personal opinion.  It might not put little Posey 
Parkinson in Slytherin with her big sister when the girl is much 
more suited for Hufflepuff, but if one is equally suited to two or 
more houses, like Harry, one can make a suggestion like "Ravenclaw, 
please", or the canon "Not Slytherin. Anything but Slytherin".

~Saturniia








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 02:29:10 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:29:10 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dltt6v+6mg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0k5m+fm32@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143377

Alla earlier:
> > 7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a 
year",   
> > how does he know about Dumbledore's injury?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> It looks to me that Slughorn only noticed Dumbledore was injured 
> after Dumbledore arrived.
> 
> > Is there any significance that he describes the reason for 
the     
> > injury basically the same way Snape describes it to 
Bella          
> > in "Spinner's end"?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Again, I agree with Carol, that this was the most obvious excuse 
so 
> Dumbledore and Snape have decided to go with this particular 
tale.  
> It's always struck me as fake because Dumbledore was so clearly 
> *not* suffering from slowed reactions when he battled Voldemort in 
> OotP.


Alla:

Very interesting. It seems like many people ( or maybe even 
everybody who answered this question) think that Slughorn did not 
know about Dumbledore's injury before they came. But to me the fact 
that Slughorn first tells Dumbledore that he ought to think about 
retirement and THEN narrator says " his pale gooseberry eyes had 
found Dumbledore's injured hand" implies that Slughorn ALREADY knows 
why DD may want to think about retirement. Curious, very very 
curious indeed. :-)

Oh, and  if you say that "Reactions  not what they were, I see" was 
the excuse that DD and Snape cooked up, then would not it make sense 
that since Slughorn knows about the excuse, he would already know 
about the reason for the excuse, namely the injury itself?

Am I making sense? If I am aware that Dumbledore's reactions are 
slower that they were, woudn't I know why?

Of course  the main reason why it bugs me is because Slughorn's 
behaviour in this chapter is a possible indicator that Dumbledore's 
injury was NOT mortal wound or anything like that.

When I read the book for the first time this chapter was one of  the 
main reasons why I did not even consider that DD injury could be 
serious.


Oh, and there is another reason why " reactions slower than they 
were" bugs me. That was a reason given to DE. Where Slughorn would 
learn it, especially if he is on the run and out of touch with 
everybody?

JMO,

Alla


  







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 03:14:07 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:14:07 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dm0k5m+fm32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0mpv+pv6s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143378



> Alla:
> 
>It seems like many people ( or maybe even 
> everybody who answered this question) think that Slughorn did not 
> know about Dumbledore's injury before they came. But to me the fact 
> that Slughorn first tells Dumbledore that he ought to think about 
> retirement and THEN narrator says " his pale gooseberry eyes had 
> found Dumbledore's injured hand" implies that Slughorn ALREADY knows 
> why DD may want to think about retirement. Curious, very very 
> curious indeed. :-)

Personally I read that as Slughorn noticing the injury here for the
first time-- "his pale gooseberry eyes HAD found Dumbledore's injured
hand".  Like, '"You've redecorated I see", said Joe;  his eyes HAD
gone to the new curtains.'  Or something like that.  I guess it could
be read as Slughorn looking for the hand, but I don't see any real
reason to read it that way.

> Oh, and  if you say that "Reactions  not what they were, I see" was 
> the excuse that DD and Snape cooked up, then would not it make sense 
> that since Slughorn knows about the excuse, he would already know 
> about the reason for the excuse, namely the injury itself?

I'm trying to remember my original impression, but I think I got a
sense that the type of injury would be recognizable to people who knew
about that sort of thing.  So if you knew it was caused by a
trap-style curse that jumped out at you, and you saw someone with an
injury from that curse, you would say, "Aha!  This guy wasn't quick
enough to counter the sudden-shrivel Curse."  Does that make any
sense? :)  In any case, here's an old gunfighter with a gunshot wound;
so "reactions not quick as they used to be" would be a standard sort
of thing to conclude.

-- Sydney










From va32h at comcast.net  Wed Nov 23 02:24:53 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:24:53 -0000
Subject: Voldemort - the child
In-Reply-To: <20051122235943.71924.qmail@web33111.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dm0jtl+bkr9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143379

Ioana wrote:
>
>   I was wondering why did Dumbledore want Voldemort to be a student 
at his new school. Is it because all of the wizard-kids go there or 
did Dumbledore realize his potential ? 
<SNIP>

va32h:

Dumbledore is not the kind of man who would deny a magical child his 
birthright (his magical learning) simply on the basis of what he might 
do. This is why Lupin was allowed into Hogwarts as well. 

Dumbledore probably suspected Tom Riddle in the basilisk caper, but he 
had no proof - and again, it is his nature (and his weakness) to 
believe the best in everyone. 

va32h








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 03:15:15 2005
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:15:15 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dm07ku+1q9v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0ms3+l5i8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143380

>   
> > Amiable Dorsai wrote:
> > "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men 
> to do nothing."  Edmund Burke
> > 
> > I see no other moral course, either for Harry or Dumbledore.  Do 
> you?
> >  
> 
> Lucianam: 
> I see the course of accepting the need to kill as their only option, 
> not something to feel vengeful and proud of. I see two paragraphs 
> overflowing with proudness and lack of 
> questioning. 'Fierce', 'strong', 'gleaming eyes', 'approving pat on 
> the back', 'true son' and 'take my hat off to you' leave no room to 
> feelings of doubt, which would be normal considering who is 
> speaking, about what he is speaking, and to whom he is speaking. 

Amiable Dorsai:

So it's OK for Harry to make the (very moral, IMHO) decision to do all
he can to protect the people he loves from monstrous evil so long as
he wears sackcloth and ashes in penitance?


Lucianam:
> Aka 
> a teenager who has never killed anyone previously and therefore 
> doesn't know how he really feels about it yet; talking about killing 
> which I presume is no easy thing in any situation (I might be wrong 
> about that but I hope not); addressing a public composed mostly of 
> teenagers like himself and also children.

I don't know.  It seems to me that one of the reasons for the appeal
of the Potter books is that JKR does not talk down to her audience,
doesn't sugarcoat.  Harry's attitude seems realistic to me.  A little
pride, a little bravado...

A little fear.

See how he feels at the end of book 7.

 
> In my opinion those two paragraphs are offensive (to me, I know) 
> because the killing problem wasn't treated as a problem at all, it 
> was addressed way too briefly and that was it. Since in a previous 
> book Harry spared Pettigrew's life and was told he did the right 
> thing, I guess it's fair to suppose the books' take on the matter 
> have changed. Well, because it's war now? Fine. Show me the war. 
> Show me Harry fighting for his life and killing Death Eaters as he 
> tries to save himself and his friends, but spare me the simplistic 
> speech.

Amiable Dorsai:
I thought it quite realistic.  I remember similar speeches from a
young friend who joined the Marines shortly after 9/11, and from men
of my father's generation who fought in WWII.

Lucianam:
> In my opinion, to talk about killing must be different from fighting 
> and doing the actual killing. Possibly Harry can't make that 
> distinction, being little more than a child, but Dumbledore is 
> supposed to be wise. 

Amiable Dorsai:
And so he encourages Harry to resist evil, and to take pride in doing
so.  Harry, remember, is not (at this point) talking about going out
and hunting down Death Eaters as a vigilante, he is saying that he
will not go down without a fight.  I think it's a healthy, and yes,
profoundly moral attitude.  One that would quickly render the Death
Eaters impotent if more of the Wizarding population had it.

And I believe Dumbledore is wise to encourage him.

Amiable Dorsai






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 03:44:13 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:44:13 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlvm2a+jbsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0oid+akr4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143381

Carol earlier:
> > It's true that the diary was *written* when Tom was sixteen (the
> > memory that it contains is himself near the end of his fifth year 
> > and he would have turned sixteen the previous January), but its 
> > original purpose was to "continue Salazar Slytherin's noble work" 
> > of weeding out "Mudbloods" using the Basilisk. It was not 
> > originally a Horcrux, as *he did not know how to make one at that 
> > time*.
> >
> > When he wrote the diary (placed the memory of himself in it), he 
> > had not yet killed his father and grandparents, who were apparently 
> > AK'd the following summer. He returned to school wearing the ring, 
> > which could not have been a Horcrux or he would not have asked 
> > Slughorn how to create one.
> 
> MercuryBlue responded:
> Would you please explain what makes you think that Memory!Tom is 
> separate from SoulFragment!Tom? That seems to be the main point of 
> your argument, that Tom put the memory of his sixteen-year-old self 
> into the diary, then went off and killed his dad and figured out how 
> to make Horcruxes and attached a soul fragment to the diary too. I 
> don't see how the memory is separate from the soul fragment, which 
> does imply that Tom had both killed his family and figured out how 
> to make Horcruxes before he hit seventeen. (Which, in point of fact, 
> was in December.)
> 
> 
Carol again:
I don't think there *is* a "soul fragment Tom." What Tom Riddle
originally put into the diary is a memory of himself in his fifth
year, before he had acquired the ring or killed his parents and
therefore before he had talked to Slughorn about Horcruxes. When he
finally did make the diary into a Horcrux, the memory of Tom already
present apparently acquired new powers (DD says in HBP that a mere
memory could not have possessed Ginny), but he wouldn't have acquired
any new memories. He's still sixteen-year-old, fifth-year Tom.
Anything he knows that occurred after the diary was written comes from
Ginny, not from the addition of the soul fragment (which is the
immortal part of the self, distinct, IMO, from the personality or
identity of the earthly self).

The original purpose of the diary is exactly what Diary!Tom states
that it was: 

"I knew it wouldn't be safe to open the Chamber again while I was
still at school. But I wasn't going to waste those long years I'd
spent searching for it. I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving
my sixteen-year-old self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I
would be able to lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar
Slytherin's noble work" (SS Am. ed. 312). 

This is apparently the purpose of the diary that Lucius Malfoy knew
about when he put it into Ginny's cauldron. He knew that the diary
could be used to open the Chamber of Secrets and release the monster
to kill Mugglebloods. What Lucius didn't know was that the diary was
later turned into a Horcrux. And it *had* to be later, for the reasons
I've stated: Tom Riddle didn't know anything about Horcruxes until at
least the next year, when he talked to Slughorn (after killing the
Riddles, as the ring indicates), and even then he didn't have
sufficient information to create one.

Carol earlier:
> > He *may* have discovered it the following summer (between his
sixth and seventh years), possibly by visiting Grindelwald (whose
single Horcrux it appears that Dumbledore later destroyed)
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> Dumb question: Why do you think Grindelwald made a Horcrux? My 
> thought was he's famous only for being defeated by Dumbledore, and 
> is utterly irrelevant now.

Carol again:
Not a dumb question at all. Dumbledore indicates in HBP that at least
one other wizard that both he and Voldemort know about created a
single Horcrux. (Sorry I don't have the quote at my fingertips. I'm
sure it's in the chapter called "Horcruxes," or at least, that's where
I'd expect it to be.) We know that Dumbledore defeated (not killed)
the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in 1945. I speculate that Dumbledore
brought about Grindelwald's defeat by destroying his Horcrux. We also
know that Tom Riddle left school in the summer of 1945. If, after
talking with Slughorn in his sixth year (1943-44), he was determined
to find out more about Horcruxes, and if he knew that Grindelwald had
made one, he could have visited him ("craving" to learn from the
"master," to use the language of the Death Eaters) in the summer of
1944. He already had at least two objects and three or four murders as
preparation for the lesson. What he didn't have was the knowledge
needed to convert them to Horcruxes.

I realize that this is all speculation, but why would JKR have
Dumbledore defeat a Dark Wizard in a year of such significance to
Voldemort if there's no connection? Grindelwald is carefully mentioned
early in SS/PS, just as Scabbers and Sirius Black were. Chances are he
was mentioned for a reason. But, of course, I could be wrong.
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> Can we agree to disagree? It isn't likely that we'll find out which 
> of us is right, after all.

Carol:
Certainly. In fact, I'm not arguing now--just providing the
explanations that you asked for. If I had time, I'd substantiate the
dates and provide more quotes, but it's simpler just to provide the
gist of the argument.
> 
> 
> Carol earlier:
> > Moreover, we've seen that the Sorting Hat has a mind of its own 
> > over and above the "brains" of the four Founders poured into it 
> > when the school was divided into four Houses. It's clearly not 
> > influenced by Tom Riddle's thinking. (JKR says it has never been 
> > wrong.) 
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> JKR didn't actually say it's never been wrong, just that it is
certainly sincere. So it honestly believes it has sent everyone into
the best House for them, whether it's actually the best House for them
or not.

Carol again:
Actually, I can prove you wrong on this one. :-)

Here's the quote, from Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz, "The Leaky
Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Two,"
The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005:

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm

ES: Has the sorting hat ever been wrong?
JKR: No.
ES: Really?
JKR: Mm-mm. Do you have a theory?
ES: I have heard a lot of theories.
JKR: [laugh] I bet you have. No. [laugh] Sorry.
MA: That's interesting, because that would suggest that the voice
comes more from a person's own head than the hat itself -
JKR: [makes mysterious noise]
MA: And that maybe when it talks on its own it comes from -
JKR: The founders themselves.

That first "No" is pretty definitive. No suggestion that the Hat is a
Horcrux. Its opinions come from "the founders themselves." And
sincerity (from a different interview
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ) would be
an odd virtue in a hat infested or possessed by a fragment of Tom
Riddle's soul.

Anyway, I'll just briefly reiterate what I think about the Horcruxes
here, FWIW:

The Sorting Hat is not a Horcrux. (See upthread for reasons.)

The diary was not originally a Horcrux but was transformed into one in
Tom's last year at Hogwarts or later. Until that point, he didn't have
the requisite knowledge to create one.

Tom *may* have visited Grindelwald in the summer of 1944 (or 1945) to
learn about Horcruxes. I don't see who else he could have obtained the
information from.

Both the diary and the ring had been made into Horcruxes before Tom's
visit to Hepzibah Smith to obtain the cup and the locket, as his
altered appearance (red eyes, thin cheeks) indicates.

The cup and the locket were made into Horcruxes after Tom quit Borgin
and Burkes and disappeared, but before the DADA interview with
Dumbledore. (His features are blurred as the result of making so many
Horcruxes, but he is still recognizable to DD and his original followers.)

The unknown fifth Horcrux (the tiara?) may have been created at about
the same time and obtained through similar means, but I don't have a
specific theory regarding it. It was certainly made before he began
recruiting followers around 1971 because his appearance was fully
altered at that point. (DD says that he was unrecognizable as the
formerly handsome Tom Riddle when he began recruiting followers.)

The sixth Horcrux, Nagini, was (IMO) created at about the time LV
returned to England and began recruiting followers. His very close
relationship with Nagini, his resemblance to a snake, his ability to
possess her without destroying her ("in essence divided"), and his
dependence on her "milk" for sustenance in his "fetal" form all result
from her identity as a (mortal) Horcrux with a mind of its (her) own.

Carol, noting that the summary of her current views in the last part
of the post is not intended as an argument

 
 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 23 03:26:14 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:26:14 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
References: <dm0hqk+7b6o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c5efdd$a97d76f0$c07e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143382

> Saturniia:
> Okay, so we have it from the horse's... er... the author's mouth
> that the Sorting Hat is never wrong.  However, we do know the
> Sorting Hat's first decision can be vetoed.  Our canon proof?
>
> Harry Potter himself!
>
> Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Sorting Hat may never be wrong, but
> that little voice the characters hear when the hat's on their head
> can be swayed by personal opinion.  It might not put little Posey
> Parkinson in Slytherin with her big sister when the girl is much
> more suited for Hufflepuff, but if one is equally suited to two or
> more houses, like Harry, one can make a suggestion like "Ravenclaw,
> please", or the canon "Not Slytherin. Anything but Slytherin".


Magpie:

We don't really know how much it's swayed by personal opinion exactly. 
Harry doesn't really veto anything.  Iirc, Harry is the one who brings up 
Slytherin, saying, "Not Slytherin" when he sits down--he doesn't know any of 
the other houses well enough to know which one he wants.  The hat then 
reacts to that by saying he'd do well in Slytherin, but it's not like the 
hat says he's putting him in Slytherin and Harry says no, pick again.  If 
Harry had said, "Not Hufflepuff," the hat might have pointed out all the 
reasons Harry would do well in Hufflepuff before giving him Gryffindor.

Harry does seem to have a definitely connection to Slytherin, but if we use 
that first Sorting as the model it's more because Harry denies that part of 
himself and so gives it a sort of forbidden power.

Actually, I think that the Gryff/Slyth rivalry might be getting more 
damaging by causing people in both those houses to reject the qualities 
associated with it so it goes beyond just being different.  Harry had to 
access his "Slytherin side" in HBP, and it was interesting seeing him do it. 
I think one could read a bit of Draco having to consider reaching for some 
Gryffindor qualities throughout the year as well.  If everybody could accept 
all parts of themselves in all the four houses as a positive thing, all the 
houses might benefit, imo.  There's a difference, for instance, between a 
Slytherin not putting courage above everything else like a Gryffindor and a 
Slytherin being proud about not being courageous, if that makes sense.

-m 





From saturniia at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 04:14:41 2005
From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:14:41 -0000
Subject: Voldemort - the child
In-Reply-To: <20051122235943.71924.qmail@web33111.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dm0qbh+92mo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143383

Ioana says:
>   I was wondering why did Dumbledore want Voldemort to be a student 
at his new school. Is it because all of the wizard-kids go there or 
did Dumbledore realize his potential ? 

Saturniia says:
Dumbledore never had a "new" school, really.  He went to inform Riddle 
of his birthright when the boy was eligible to attend school, but the 
place Dumbledore was talking about was always Hogwarts, and very old.

I would think that not all wizarding kids go to wizarding school 
(Hogwarts or otherwise).  Some might have been home-schooled, though 
the fact that Draco Malfoy attends Hogwarts suggests this is more the 
parents' choice for control than a measure of prestiege.

Is it known that Merope attended Hogwarts?  I'm afraid I don't have 
the book with me at school, and I've forgotten.

Ioana says:
>   While he was in school, nobody understood the kind of danger he 
was and they never actually tried to stop him (remember the episode 
when Hagrid got expel from Hogwarts school because of Voldemort). It 
seems like he was perfectly able to hide his true nature even from 
Dumbledore

Saturniia says:
Or maybe it's just a case of "better the devil you know than the one 
you don't".  By having Tom Riddle at Hogwarts, Dumbledore can observe 
him, study him.  He can use that information to try to save Tom, yes, 
but what he learns can also be used to destroy Voldemort.  Upon 
learning of what the unschooled Tom can already do, and his attitude 
towards the others at the orphanage, Dumbledore had to know that the 
odds were at least 1:1, probably favoring the dark.

Saturniia.





From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 05:30:09 2005
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:30:09 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat Never Wrong..
Message-ID: <dm0up1+k801@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143384

Of course it isn't...

For the most part, the story is told through Harry's eyes..

If Harry is a horcrux it would explain the Sorting hat incident..

However,

If Harry is not a Horcrux...then Slughorn may be a redempbtive 
character

Or,

More likely:

Voldie moldy made the sorting hat a horcrux..

Voldie may have put a portion of his soul in his hat....but if he 
did, then it would be ONE of Four other portions...

Why on earth would Fawkes bring the sorting hat??!???
(perhaps a four on ONE experience in sorting hat universe?_

Harry received a gryphindor artifact..(why? Well, I don't know 
either)

This would make so much sense...hence in COS...16 y.o. horcrux never 
viewed Fawkes, nor the sorting hat, nor Tom Riddle for that matter 
much of a threat!

Voldie wants to be a Phoenix...but he is not..and he can never be 
one because one must still care for "fledgling phoenix"...hence the 
PS wouldn't have been much more use to him.


But when we look at things like trust and love...(well we can get 
into a whole new tonks/remus issue there)...These are aspects that 
make Fawkes and the PS so powerful...due to love and trust...the PS 
wouldn't work because in book one...Quirrell wanted it for 
himself..and could have had it..because he would have had someone 
who loved him. Voldemort knows about the power of love..but he wants 
to escape it..

JK and DD are corect LOVE will save Harry..

LV may have the knowledge to hatch a basilisk...but we know he will 
never know how to hatch a phoenix..

Harry may be a great deal of things...and so may the sorting hat...

And it really would be so fitting if horcrux Harry, beat the horcrux 
Sorting hat...better yet...if Harry beat "horcrux sorting 
hat"...better yet...if Horcux harry, beat the Horcrux sorting hat
(wich I would believe)..

doddie,

(who believes the gleam in DD's eye was that he thought the "blood 
letting" to bring Voldy back compromised the horcrux in some 
way....hence DD never told Harry how his hand was blackened...yet 
the horcrux ring was destroyed...We know Harry can kill 
Nagini..because Harry viewed arthurs attact....it will not take so 
much second time around)






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 23 05:46:14 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:46:14 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment (Re: Hermione's role)
In-Reply-To: <dlt6s9+agnj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0vn6+4elc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143385

> Carol responds:
> I agree that Harry will have to rely, perhaps more than ever, on
> Hermione's remarkable memory of what she's read in books. Possibly
> she's read something about the traces left by magical concealment
> that will come in handy...

Jen: After re-reading GOF, it struck me Mad-Eye might be able to see 
magical concealment. He can see through invisibility cloaks and 
that's a form of concealment, right? OK, maybe I'm stretching there, 
but no one else except Dumbledore is able to see through 
invisibility cloaks.

Other than Mad-eye, I think there's a chance one of the characters, 
maybe even Harry, will discover an ability to see magic as 
Dumbledore did. Lizo interviewed JKR in 2000 and asked if there were 
any special wizarding powers done with the eyes and when she pressed 
him as to why he asked that, he said, "Well because everyone always 
goes on about how Harry's got Lilly Potter's eyes." JKR responded he 
was clever, and there might be something more about it. She may have 
only been referring to Dumbledore's ability, though.

On another note, I wonder if Mad-eye is the one who will shed light 
on Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald? We don't know how old he is, 
but he was referred to as Dumbledore's friend and might have been in 
the MOM at the time. Or perhaps Slughorn is the one, he was a 
colleague at the time of GW's defeat and knew of horcruxes. Maybe 
Slughorn's knowledge of horcruxes was due to hearing rumours about 
Grindelwald forming one.



Jen







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 07:35:00 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:35:00 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompet
In-Reply-To: <dm09d5+k0oa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1634+h2iv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143387

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at y...> wrote:
>
> > Potioncat:
>  So, yes, I think DD speaks parseltongue.
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> You may well be right. Being a person who understands multiple 
> languages (French, Fijian, Rotuman, German and Italian) without 
> actually speaking them I add that it is possible that while 
> Dumbledore can understand Parseltongue it does not mean that he 
> necessarily speaks it.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Confused?
> 
> TTFN
>

bboyminn:

I think Goddlefrood has the right idea. Let me use a similar example,
while I neither speak nor understand various Asian Languages, I can
usually distinguish one from the other. Thought, I'm probably a bit
rusty at the moment. For example, I can distinguish between Thai,
Japanese, and Chinese; even though I understand none of them. 

So, my point is that Dumbledore might recognised Parseltongue without
understanding it. Further, it's not hard to gather someone's intend
but their inflection and tone of voice, and general demeanor. As
someone else pointed out when a mad looking seemingly derange
individual confronts you with a brandished wand and knife and an
unpleasant agressive demeanor; it not hard to figure out he is say you
aren't wanted around here. Even further, this idea is supported by the
fact that the Gaunt's weren't engaged in long drawn out deeply
intellectual conversations in Parseltongue, the statements are few,
blunt, emotional, and to the points. Again, not hard to guess their
intent.

To the central point, in general Dumbledore may or may not speak
parseltongue, but the conversation in question does not actually
reveal this fact for us.

Just a thought.

STeve/bboyminn






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 09:57:44 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:57:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlvm2a+jbsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051123095744.15600.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143388

  mercurybluesmng  wrote:     "Would you please explain what makes you think that Memory!Tom is 
separate from SoulFragment!Tom? That seems to be the main point of 
your argument, that Tom put the memory of his sixteen-year-old self 
into the diary, then went off and killed his dad and figured out how 
to make Horcruxes and attached a soul fragment to the diary too. I 
don't see how the memory is separate from the soul fragment, which 
does imply that Tom had both killed his family and figured out how 
to make Horcruxes before he hit seventeen. (Which, in point of fact, 
was in December.)"

CH3ed:
  Well, I think of the diary as primarily a penseive which LV made when he was 16 (quite an achievement for that age)... and LV made the diary penseive into a horcrux later (the soul bit then enable the memory to think and react with the outside world so that the 16 yrs old memory of LV could possess Ginny and the rest of the things it did in CoS that a normal penseive memory can't do). So the memory and the soul aren't separate. They were just put in the diary at different times. This is my speculation, of course, not a confirmed fact.



		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 11:16:23 2005
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:16:23 -0000
Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP
In-Reply-To: <dm0ms3+l5i8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1j27+cknj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143389

> Amiable Dorsai:
> And so he encourages Harry to resist evil, and to take pride in 
doing
> so.  Harry, remember, is not (at this point) talking about going out
> and hunting down Death Eaters as a vigilante, he is saying that he
> will not go down without a fight.  I think it's a healthy, and yes,
> profoundly moral attitude...

Finwitch:

I quite agree.

Consider these facts:

To eat you must kill, if not an animal, a bird (even unborn one, as 
an egg) or a fish, then at at least a plant.

In order to keep you healthy, white cells in your blood kill bacteria 
by the dozen.

In order for a fetus to develop properly some cells in its body must 
die.

One cell out of a million manages to fertilize the egg cell, the 
others die out.

Several cells in your body die every single day.

All that lives will die eventually, whatever you do.

Finwitch






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 12:01:13 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:01:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dlufae+9biq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1lm9+b8s4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143390

> > 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents
> > even in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so.
> > Here Harry meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like
> > his mother very much and Harry is still not asking him any
> > questions about Lily. What do you think about it?
> 
> Jen: Grrrrr. You mean besides JKR stringing this out as long as 
she 
> can, refusing to spill the beans on Lily? ;)
> 
a_svirn:
You know, it's really the most interesting question. But I would 
even expand it a bit. I find the omissions of the 4th chapter no 
less interesting than what is really happening there. Why on earth 
didn't Harry discuss the events of previous chapter and ask 
questions that have been so prominent in our on-list discussion? 
It's not like he knows what sort of agreement or contract Dumbledore 
had with Petunia. If there *was* a contract at all surely he would 
be most interested in its terms? 

We have been attempting an in-depth semantic analysis of the word 
*grudgingly* , wondering what else was in that letter and why 
Petunia was "oddly flushed" and pondering the legal ramification of 
Harry's being left in the foster care. And here is Harry in a 
company of the only man who knows the answers, one moreover who has 
just brought up this subject in the Dursleys' living-room, thus 
giving Harry a convenient opening, and what does Harry do? Discusses 
Daily Prophet's editorials.  Now why? It's downright befuddling, 
actually. It is the matter of his life and his survival after all. 







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 12:10:26 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:10:26 -0000
Subject: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <00d601c5efdd$a97d76f0$c07e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dm1m7i+f0ip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143391

 
> Magpie:
> I think one could read a bit of Draco having to consider reaching 
for some 
> Gryffindor qualities throughout the year as well.  

a_svirn:

Could one, though? Which qualities do you have in mind? Chivalry or 
bravery?  I have never seen him being particularly chivalrous; as for 
bravery, well, he might have *considered* reaching for it but it 
didn't look like he succeeded.  






From mudblood68 at yahoo.de  Wed Nov 23 08:42:07 2005
From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:42:07 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dm0k5m+fm32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1a0v+9rb3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143392

> Alla:
...<snip>Slughorn first tells Dumbledore that he ought to think about 
> retirement and THEN narrator says " his pale gooseberry eyes had 
> found Dumbledore's injured hand" implies that Slughorn ALREADY 
knows 
> why DD may want to think about retirement. <snip>

Claudia:
I rather thought Slughorn's suggestion of DD's retirement was more of 
a justification for his own retirement and had not so much to do with 
DD's real state of health.


Alla:
<SNIP>
> When I read the book for the first time this chapter was one of  
the 
> main reasons why I did not even consider that DD injury could be 
> serious.

Claudia:
It's so interesting how readers percieve the same text totally 
different. Because for me it was clear after DD's injury was 
mentioned the first time, that DD was going to die during the book. 
This was confirmed for me when DD said he would teach Harry himself. 
So after this chapter I "knew" DD would not survive book6.

On the other hand, since English is not my mothertongue, I may be 
missing a lot of unspoken meaning within the text.

Claudia








From LydiiaAdleida at aol.com  Wed Nov 23 00:24:39 2005
From: LydiiaAdleida at aol.com (Diana)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:24:39 -0000
Subject: locket horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dlve6s+1g32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm0cs7+5kni@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143393

Alora wrote:
>
> *coming up from lurkdom*
> 
> This may have already been discussed, but in OoP, when Harry and 
> everyone are cleaning out the glass cupboards, they find aheavy 
gold 
> locket.  Any chance that could be the real horcrux?  




Diana:
I actually was just thinking about that the other day after a 
wonderful viewing of the movie. My husband, who has much more of an 
eye for detail than I , mentioned the locket they discovered cleaning 
the cupboard as the possible one they had been looking for. Another 
suggestion he made: and anyone chime in on this, was Harry possibly 
an unintentional horcrux due to his destruction of Voldemort when he 
was small? This may explain a bit why Voldemort needed Harry, also he 
may have been able to take back that portion of his soul when he was 
reanimated at the end of GOF. any thoughts?
Diana.







From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov 23 04:46:22 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:46:22 -0500
Subject: Two comments re Slughorn and Fang
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAQ8GC2R7dBUuDMhDVKBYxlQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143394

>>>Betsy Hp:
<SNIP> 
And I thought that Slughorn was gay in an old-fashioned George 
Bernard Shaw sort of way and admired Harry for more than just his 
scar.<<<<

Bruce:
GBS gay?  That's the first I've heard.

>>>>Julie
Oh, and Harry didn't give a "passing" thought to going after 
Snape. He "hoped" to give chase again, but sure enough BY
the time he'd located his wand (not running to save Fang, mind
you, but looking for his wand)<<<


Bruce:
And how was Harry supposed to save Fang WITHOUT his wand?  With his bare hands?
Bruce








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 23 14:33:32 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:33:32 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dm0k5m+fm32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1ujs+ng7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143395

Alla wrote: 
> Oh, and there is another reason why " reactions slower than they 
> were" bugs me. That was a reason given to DE. Where Slughorn would 
> learn it, especially if he is on the run and out of touch with 
> everybody? 


Potioncat:
Darn, there goes our "Good Slytherin." ;-)

He is repeating the line Snape gave LV, isn't he?

You've really gotten me thinking here. Another ESE!character for our 
list. Slughorn says he didn't have time to cast the Dark Mark. Now, was 
that a trick on DD's part?  He mentions there was no Dark Mark and 
Sluggy doesn't say, "I wouldn't go that far, old chap!" He doesn't 
say, "Only DEs know how to cast a Dark Mark." No, he says, "I didn't 
have time." Did that tell DD something?

He avoids contact with students who come from known DE families, which 
could be a pretense on his part. But, would DD hire a known DE for 
staff at Hogwarts? Would he want a DE teaching his students...oops, 
never mind. Of course he would.

Some posters think Slughorn took DD's place on the Tower. I've wondered 
if Sluggy was filling in for Snape. The only reason I have for doubting 
it, is that Snape seems so much in character as he leaves Hogwarts and 
interacts with Harry.







From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 14:41:02 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:41:02 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment (Re: Hermione's role)
In-Reply-To: <dm0vn6+4elc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1v1u+4954@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143396

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
> Jen: After re-reading GOF, it struck me Mad-Eye might be able to 
see 
> magical concealment. He can see through invisibility cloaks and 
> that's a form of concealment, right? OK, maybe I'm stretching 
there, 
> but no one else except Dumbledore is able to see through 
> invisibility cloaks.
> 
> Other than Mad-eye, I think there's a chance one of the 
characters, 
> maybe even Harry, will discover an ability to see magic as 
> Dumbledore did. Lizo interviewed JKR in 2000 and asked if there 
were 
> any special wizarding powers done with the eyes and when she 
pressed 
> him as to why he asked that, he said, "Well because everyone 
always 
> goes on about how Harry's got Lilly Potter's eyes." JKR responded 
he 
> was clever, and there might be something more about it. 

I've thought of this also.  Now, I know this is only in the PoA 
movie and not in the book, but JKR did say that there was some 
unintentional foreshadowing in the movie.  Lupin tells Harry that 
Lily was able to see things in people, things that they could not 
see themselves, or something to that effect.  Maybe that's an extra 
power that Harry has yet to discover, involving his eyes, and he 
inherited it from his mother.  Just a thought.  I've also wondered 
if every witch/wizard born has some sort of extra magical power that 
is unique to them.  

Alora 










From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Nov 23 14:45:07 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:45:07 -0000
Subject: He hates Hagrid?  (Was: Re: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?)
In-Reply-To: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1v9j+7gjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143397

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saturniia" <saturniia at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Colebiancardi:
> > where do you get the idea that Snape holds no love for Hagrid?  
If 
> > anything, Hagrid is one of Snape's biggest cheerleaders  - and I 
> have 
> > never read anything that shows that Snape doesn't like or dislike 
> > Hagrid.  Only Lockhart(who was an idiot) and Lupin(old grudges) 
> were 
> > the two professors that Snape shows his dislike for.  Everyone 
> else, I 
> > think Snape just rolls with it.
> 
> Saturniia:
> I never meant to imply Snape dislikes Hagrid, I merely meant that 
he 
> doesn't like him.  I'm not arguing semantics here; I honestly 
> believe the two terms are different.  Like you said, "Snape just 
> rolls with it", and to do that one needs either a high level of 
> maturity or, if that is not present, apathy.  His holding on to a 
> decades-old grudge and taking it out on the original target's child 
> does not speak of maturity, and yes, everyone has their hot-button 
> issues, but if it didn't hurt, one wouldn't react.  Therefore, I 
> cast my vote for apathy.
> 

In the RW, I know that there are many people I work with that I don't 
like or dislike - I deal with them as professionals.  I have worked 
with them for many years.  I would not call that apathy.  I would 
call that dealing with people that you work with in a professional 
manner.  It isn't even indifference.  There are people I work with 
that I really like & care for as friends and there are people I work 
with that I don't like at all.  But the majority of them, I have no 
opinion on.   

I would say calling Snape's attitude as being apathy as being a tad 
harsh.  I think that most people who work probably have work friends, 
work foes and those that are in the inbetween area.

> I'll argue against the idea that Hagrid being one of Snape's 
biggest 
> cheerleaders is because of Snape himself; there's no proof.  He's 
> one of Dumbledore's biggest cheerleaders, so if Dumbledore trusts 
> Snape, he will, too.  Beyond that, Snape's just a useful guy, and 
> he's been a teacher at Hogwarts for what?  Fifteen years as of HBP, 
> I believe.  Spending eight months a year for a decade and a half 
> taking your meals with a person who doesn't give you a reason to 
> hate him, who your boss and mentor trusts, is enough to make almost 
> anyone like a man.  A kind soul like Hagrid would be especially 
> susceptable.

Well, Snape is a spy - if he is DDM!Snape, he couldn't be all cozy 
and friendly to Hagrid, because if Snape was very exposed by 
Voldemort as double-agent, all those that Snape cares about would 
die.  Also, if Evil!Snape, he does have to keep up appearances, 
doesn't he?  Being a friendly guy is not in Snape's nature.  period.  
It is OOC for him.  As far as my comment on Hagrid being Snape's 
biggest cheerleader, sure it is because DD trusts Snape & Hagrid 
trusts DD. But Hagrid does defend Snape more than any other 
character - he is always telling Harry that Harry is wrong about 
Snape and doesn't want Harry to jump to conclusions about Snape. 

Don't forget - Snape has acted a part the last 16 years or so. We 
just don't which part it is :-)

Back to the RL, I respect my boss - I like my boss - I would say my 
boss & I are friends(I was invited to his wedding, we go boating in 
the summer, etc).  My boss is also friends with another co-worker 
whom I dislike - she is rubs me the wrong way.  However, she isn't 
evil or anything, I am sure she is a kind soul.  Does that make ME 
suspectable, because I don't like my boss's friend?   Just because 
Snape makes no outward gestures of friendship to Hagrid doesn't mean 
that he is suspect of some *evilness*.  There are much greater signs 
than that.  Is Trewlany suspect because I don't see her hob-nobbing 
with Hagrid in the novels.


colebiancardi
(I think Snape is a cat person, but I can't prove it :-) )






From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 14:44:01 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:44:01 -0000
Subject: locket horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dm0cs7+5kni@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm1v7h+p7i6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143398

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana" <LydiiaAdleida at a...> 
wrote:
> I actually was just thinking about that the other day after a 
> wonderful viewing of the movie. My husband, who has much more of 
an 
> eye for detail than I , mentioned the locket they discovered 
cleaning 
> the cupboard as the possible one they had been looking for. 
Another 
> suggestion he made: and anyone chime in on this, was Harry 
possibly 
> an unintentional horcrux due to his destruction of Voldemort when 
he 
> was small? This may explain a bit why Voldemort needed Harry, also 
he 
> may have been able to take back that portion of his soul when he 
was 
> reanimated at the end of GOF. any thoughts?
> Diana.


Diana,

that's very interesting, I hadn't thought of that.  Are you saying 
that if Harry was a horcrux that since Voldemort is "back", that's 
one less he needs to destroy?  I get easily confused sometimes, so 
thanks for explaining it to me.  

Alora







From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 15:00:41 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:00:41 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
Message-ID: <dm206p+aaup@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143399

I am so very slow when it comes to comprehension, but I was re-
reading HBP again, and finally a few things jumped out at me.  I am 
now convinced that Snape is not on the DE side.

HBP (US edition)ch. 28, page 604:

"Kill me then," panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage 
and contempt.  "Kill me like you killed him, you coward-"

"DON'T-" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, 
inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling 
dog stuck in the burning house behind them- "CALL ME COWARD!"

Here, I think he's in terrible pain at having had to kill 
Dumbledore, and Harry has just called him a coward for doing so.  I 
think the pain of Dumbledore's death (if he is dead) is tearing him 
apart, and then Harry (whom he dislikes already) only adds to his 
anger.

Ch. 28, page 603:

"Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your 
mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!"  Sneered Snape. 

To me, right there, he's telling Harry what he needs to do.  This 
might seem really simplistic, but it's what I am getting from the 
book.  I don't think Snape is evil, I think he's spying for the 
right side.  He knows Harry is the one that will be able to bring 
down Voldemort, and he's done what he could to help (occlumens).  
That, and keeping Harry grounded, I suppose, by being so nasty to 
him for the last 6 years ;). 

Does anyone else understand it this way?  Thanks for listening :)

Alora 






From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 15:21:01 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:21:01 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment (Re: Hermione's role)
In-Reply-To: <dm1v1u+4954@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm21ct+6bnt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143400

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora67" <chrisnlorrie at y...> 
wrote:
> I've thought of this also.  Now, I know this is only in the PoA 
> movie and not in the book, but JKR did say that there was some 
> unintentional foreshadowing in the movie.  Lupin tells Harry that 
> Lily was able to see things in people, things that they could not 
> see themselves, or something to that effect.  Maybe that's an extra 
> power that Harry has yet to discover, involving his eyes, and he 
> inherited it from his mother.  Just a thought.  I've also wondered 
> if every witch/wizard born has some sort of extra magical power that 
> is unique to them.  
> 
> Alora


I actually wanted to add something else, then I forgot.  I think Harry 
has some sort of honed instinct guiding him.  He's friends with 
someone who is extremely loyal and who's family loves him like their 
own (Ron) and with the girl who's the best in the year.  Both of which 
has helped him/guided him through many situations. How did he manage 
that, other than the fact that he just got lucky?  I don't think it's 
luck. I think it's part of what makes Harry special.

Alora 







From ms-tamany at rcn.com  Wed Nov 23 15:26:10 2005
From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm206p+aaup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4g7bqh$3u3fcg@smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143401


[Alora wrote:]  <snipped> I don't think Snape is evil, I think he's spying
for the 
right side.  He knows Harry is the one that will be able to bring 
down Voldemort, and he's done what he could to help (occlumens).  
That, and keeping Harry grounded, I suppose, by being so nasty to 
him for the last 6 years ;). 

Does anyone else understand it this way?  Thanks for listening :)


[Now Tammy says:]  That's basically the reading I've come away with, Alora,
that Snape, while being a nasty, mean, greasy git and not someone I'd ever
REALLY want in frequent close proximity (regardless of the Snape-fics I've
thoroughly enjoyed), let alone ever hire to watch and teach my kids, he is
sincerely on Dumbledore's 'side'.
 
To keep this from being a 'one-liner' me-too post, let me say that, even
though DDM!Snape is the only thing *I* get from the books, as does my sister
(though I haven't discussed it with my other sister or my brother and his
wife), our parents are both dead certain of ESE!Snape.  The thing that
clinched it for all of us, setting us all firmly in our respective camps, is
the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore.  This has CONVINCED my sister and me
that Snape was always loyal to DD and always will be, while likewise
CONVINCING our parents of the exact opposite.  Now, none of us are even
considering any 'faked death' scenarios, nor any 'pre-planned' ideas (beyond
DD telling Snape to maintain his cover at all costs or he'd be useless to
the Order, which I know we haven't seen but which I'm sure was the gist of
their argument that Hagrid overheard).  All of us agree that Snape KILLED
Dumbledore on his own, without any silent orders, and must take the
consequences of such an act.  Of course, we can't agree on what the
consequences should be, since we can't agree on WHY he killed DD.
 
OH dear, this is not really going anywhere, is it?  I suppose I just wanted
to illustrate that people who have shared so much life-experience as a
close-knit family does can still read the same exact book and come away with
ideas 180 degrees opposed.  Also, though, I wanted to let Alora know she's
not alone.
 
Tammy
ms-tamany at rcn.com

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/178 - Release Date: 11/22/2005
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From kjones at telus.net  Wed Nov 23 15:57:05 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:57:05 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] He hates Hagrid?  (Was: Re: 'Foy or Fang: Which
 was who Snape must protect?)
In-Reply-To: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com>
References: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43849151.5010208@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143402



> Saturniia:

> I'll argue against the idea that Hagrid being one of Snape's biggest
> cheerleaders is because of Snape himself; there's no proof.  He's
> one of Dumbledore's biggest cheerleaders, so if Dumbledore trusts
> Snape, he will, too.  Beyond that, Snape's just a useful guy, and
> he's been a teacher at Hogwarts for what?  Fifteen years as of HBP,
> I believe.  Spending eight months a year for a decade and a half
> taking your meals with a person who doesn't give you a reason to
> hate him, who your boss and mentor trusts, is enough to make almost
> anyone like a man.  A kind soul like Hagrid would be especially
> susceptable.
> ~Saturniia
> who also doesn't think Snape would be a "dog person", but knows she
> can't prove it

KJ writes:

     Actually, I agree that Hagrid knows enough about Snape to be
absolutely convinced about certain beliefs and I have always said that
Hagrid knows a lot more than he is saying about a lot of things.
     In PS/SS Hagrid calls Harry's suspicions that Snape hates him
"Rubbish", but he knows something that will not allow him to meet
Harry's eyes.
     Again, in the same book, when the Trio accused Snape of trying to
steal the stone, Hagrid said "Rubbish, Snape's a Hogwarts teacher, he'd
do nothing of the sort" Further, when the Trio accused Snape of trying
to hex Harry, Hagrid answered hotly "I'm tellin yeh yer wrong. I don't
know why Harry's broom acted like that but Snape wouldn' try an' kill a
student!"
     On one further occasion in this first book, Hagrid defended Snape
to the Trio.
     The only instance of conversation in this book between Hagrid and
Snape was very civil.
     In HBP Hagrid simply could not believe that Snape could possibly 
have killed Dumbledore. He "explained to Harry and himself why Snape was 
running away with the DE, and found it impossible to believe Harry's 
story until he saw DD's body.
     Hagrid's behaviour, to me, is more than just a transferred loyalty 
because of Dumbledore. Hagrid knows the full story about everybody. He 
was at school with Riddle, he was there when the Marauders and Snape 
were there, and Dumbledore trusted him with his life. There is more to 
Hagrid than meets the eye. Everybody over-looks him and few questions 
are asked of JKR about him.
KJ





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 16:30:56 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:30:56 -0000
Subject: locket horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dm1v7h+p7i6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm25g0+e5ae@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143403

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora67" <chrisnlorrie at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana" <LydiiaAdleida at a...> 
> wrote:
> > .... My husband, ..., mentioned the locket they discovered
> > cleaning the cupboard as the possible one [the Locket] they
> > had been  looking for. 

bboyminn:

Indeed that very thought has occurred to many of us. I believe it is
referred to as 'a heavy locket that no one could open'. One could
assume that Regulus (RAB or who ever) had it on his person when he was
killed and it was returned to the family amoung his personal
possessions. ALternately, he hid it at home before setting out on some
errand, and was later killed. 

Either way, JKR has suggested that Regulus Black would be a good guess
for the RAB character who wrote the note that accompanied the
fake!locket. She didn't confirm it, but merely suggested that it would
be a good guess. So, that creates a potential link between RAB and
Regulus Black and therefore to the locket, and since we have seen a
very distinctive locket at the Black Manor, the connection would
appear complete.

We do know that by all logic and reason the Horcrux task set for Harry
is nearly impossible; Harry even acknowledges as much. So, I can only
assume that we will need some short cuts to finding and destroying
them. The problem is, the Locket and many other Black Family items
were simply trashed by Sirius while they worked to clean the Black
house. Can something be returned from the trash, if it was vanished -
can it be unvanished, or perhaps it is one item that Kreacher managed
to steal and hid away. How willingly will Kreacher give up this item
or even acknowledge its existance. Enquiring minds want to know.


> > Diana continues:
>
> > ... was Harry possibly an unintentional horcrux due to his
> > destruction of Voldemort when he was small? This may explain
> > a bit why Voldemort needed Harry, also he may have been able
> > to take back that portion of his soul when he  was reanimated
> > at the end of GOF. any thoughts?
> > Diana.
> 
> 
> Diana,
> 
> that's very interesting, I hadn't thought of that.  Are you saying 
> that if Harry was a horcrux that since Voldemort is "back", that's 
> one less he needs to destroy?  I get easily confused sometimes, so 
> thanks for explaining it to me.  
> 
> Alora
>

bboyminn:

While the idea of Harry being a Horcrux has certainly occurred to all
of us, and I believe it is a supposition that is very easy to make,
I'm not convinced it is true. The act of killing does not create a
Horcrux, and since Dumbledore seems to have given this a great deal of
thought and seems to have disgarded or at least discounted the
possibility, I don't put to much stock in it.

However, you have come up with what I think is a new and innovative
approach to the idea. If, by some highly unlikely circumstance, Harry
was a Horcrux, was Voldemort's soul transfer back into him when he
used Harry blood as part of his rebirthing ceremony? Or perhaps, that
bit of Voldemort's soul has been PARTLY transferred back to Voldemort
so that, in a sense, Harry and Voldemort are sharing the bit of the soul.

Now we must ponder the potential consequences of such an action. If
the soul bit was transfer back to its owner, then Harry has one less
Horcrux to worry about, unfortunately, Harry doesn't know this so he
will certainly worry about it. If by chance he is forced into a
confrontation with Voldemort before he is ready, then perhaps Harry
will indeed be able to defeat him. One problem I see with this is WHO
will explain it to Harry after the fact, it seems like a detail that
someone would indeed have to explain so the readers will understand
what happened. 

In the case, of Voldemort and Harry now sharing the soul-bit, that
complicates things both for Harry and for the readers. Does that mean
Voldemort is now vulnerable because he has the soul-bit or is he
protected because Harry has it? Could this be the reason why both
Harry and Voldemort have to die, and how can they BOTH die in a way
that assures that they die at the same time? Perhaps we are back to my
theory of Harry taking Voldemort through the Veiled Archway.

Just a few thought.

STeve/bboyminn






From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 16:30:18 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:30:18 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dlvk86+ir07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm25eq+71q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143404

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I had a thought this morning and although I have not thought it 
> > completely through, I decided to post it.
> > 
> > We know from PoA that the DEs knew that Peter was a spy.  
> > 
> > "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters . . . Sounds 
> like 
> > they think the double-crosser double-crossed them . . . " (Am. 
ver. 
> p. 
> > 368)
> > 
> > So, he was probably part of the /circle/ (literally) of 
supporters 
> > that Voldemort would call to him (like in the graveyard).  There 
> was a 
> > place for Snape too (the one he thought had left him forever).  
So 
> > that means, like all the other DEs (loyal or not), Snape knew 
Peter 
> > was the spy.
> 
> c: I don't believe anyone knew about Peter back in 1980/1981 as 
being 
> a spy for Voldemort - it doesn't seem that way in the books.  
Also, 
> since Voldy kind of mistrusts his DE's, he probably kept them in 
the 
> dark about their roles.  In GoF, when Snape is accused of being a 
DE, 
> he wasn't labeled as a spy, just a DE.
> 
> But because of the Order of the Phoenix, I would think that 
Peter's 
> role would be kept hush-hush.  His name never, as far as we have 
been 
> privy to, came up in an court/trial scenes as being a Death Eater.

Ginny:
Back in 1980/81 I'm not sure people didn't know about Peter.  
According to PoA, the Order thought "someone" close to the Potters 
were passing information and Sirius accused Peter of having been 
passing information to LV for a year before James and Lily's death.  
Sirius also said that Peter was hiding from the LV's supporters who 
weren't in Azkaban because they thought Peter had caused LV's 
downfall when he had gone to the Potter's Peter's info.  So, at 
least some of the DEs knew Peter gave the information and Peter knew 
it (hence his hiding as a rat).

About the court/trial, I might be wrong here, but I thought the 
scenes we've witnessed were after LV's downfall.  I find it hard to 
believe Karkaroff would betray fellow DE's if LV was still in 
power.  So, everyone assumed Peter to be dead.  It would be 
pointless to accuse him.
 
> 
> > 
> > That given, I am a little confused about why Sirius was believed 
to 
> be 
> > a spy.  Did they think there was two spies working on the same 
> thing?  
> 
> c:I don't think they thought there were two spies - I think that 
> since Sirius was supposed to be the Secret Keeper and everyone 
knew 
> it and then James & Lily are found by Voldemort, people believed 
that 
> Sirius betrayed them(not necessarily a spy, mind you) and since 
James 
> and Lily were dead and Peter assumed dead, who was going to 
believe 
> Sirius?
> 
Ginny:
Okay, but here is my main question.  If the DEs knew that Peter gave 
the information on LV, then it is really hard to believe that Snape 
didn't know that.  So if Snape is really concerned that Sirius is 
dangerous to Harry, he must have thought both Peter and Sirius were 
on LVs side.  

> > Did Snape think Sirius went after Peter to kill him because 
Peter 
> had 
> > caused the downfall of Voldemort? 
> 
> 
> c: Snape didn't know about Peter in the Shack.  He followed Lupin 
> because a) Lupin forgot his drink that evening and b) was 
curious.  
> He didn't know the children were in the Shack, or Sirius when he 
> started out.

Ginny:
Okay, I posted this badly and got really confused at the response.  
I meant, right after J&L were killed (in 1981), did Snape think 
Sirius went after Peter to kill him because he caused the downfall 
of LV or did Snape think Peter (grieving) went after Sirius because 
his friends were dead.  I don't think Snape could have believed 
Peter went after Sirius out of grief (as everyone had thought) 
because he must have known Peter was the one to betray.  I know that 
is confusing.  Even if Snape didn't know at the time that Peter was 
the one passing information, as the years went on, with some DEs 
knowing it was Peter passing information . . . he must have realized 
it.  I mean, he is friends with the Malfoys and teaches many of the 
DE's kids.
> 
>  > 7th book, I am a little disappointed to think that Snape knew 
> about 
> > Peter, and yet the teachers in the school believed Peter to be 
> > innocent.
> 
> 
> c:I don't think Snape knew Peter's role with Voldemort until AFTER 
> PoA & BEFORE GoF.  Hence, I don't think there is anything to be 
> disappointed about :-)
> 
Ginny:
I hope you are right, but I need more convincing. 

> > of what happened in PoA, Snape should have told the minister 
that 
> > Black was not the one who got James and Lily killed.  Why didn't 
he?
> 
> c:At that point and time, Snape still believed Sirius was the 
Secret 
> Keeper who betrayed James & Lily - no one told him otherwise (or 
at 
> least, someone with creditability)   Dumbledore most likely filled 
> Snape in after the scene in the Hospital Ward.
> 
Ginny:
Did Snape really still think Sirius was the Secret Keeper?  Even 
though LV's supporters knew Peter gave the information?


Ginny343, still feeling that at the beginning of PoA Snape knew more 
than he was sharing.  And maybe because he hated Sirius . . . but 
wouldn't that cause his problems with DD?








From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 23 16:35:05 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:35:05 -0000
Subject: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dm1m7i+f0ip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm25np+sajp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143405

 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Could one, though? Which qualities do you have in mind? Chivalry 
or 
> bravery?  I have never seen him being particularly chivalrous; as 
for 
> bravery, well, he might have *considered* reaching for it but it 
> didn't look like he succeeded.

Magpie:

I think he probably had to screw up his courage plenty of times 
during the year, and probably saw himself as having to protect his 
family.  It may be inverted in that he's dedicating himself to the 
wrong power, but I still see plenty of similarities in what he sees 
himself as doing, especially early in the year.  A lot of his story 
in HBP is a twisted, shadow version of plenty of Gryffindor values, 
imo.  Though in the end in his case refraining from killing was the 
right thing to do instead of killing.

-m







From annettelong2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 16:41:23 2005
From: annettelong2003 at yahoo.com (Annette Long)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: locket horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dm25g0+e5ae@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051123164123.3271.qmail@web84011.mail.dcn.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143406

Diana wrote:
> > .... My husband, ..., mentioned the locket they discovered
> > cleaning the cupboard as the possible one [the Locket] they
> > had been  looking for. 

bboyminn:
> Indeed that very thought has occurred to many of us. I believe it is
> referred to as 'a heavy locket that no one could open'. One could
> assume that Regulus (RAB or who ever) had it on his person when he was
> killed and it was returned to the family amoung his personal
> possessions. ALternately, he hid it at home before setting out on some
> errand, and was later killed. 


Annette:
My theory is that Kreacher is the one who helped Regulus get into the cave, and Kreacher knows what the locket is, as Regulus stashed the locket with Kreacher......or Mundungus actually retrieved the locket from the "trash" and has sold it, not knowing what it was.  If he sold it in Hogsmeade, DD's brother may get in on the action, in trying to find it.  I think he will play a role in Book 7.

Annette





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 23 17:19:16 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:19:16 -0000
Subject: House Traits and Sorting Hat  (was extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong"
In-Reply-To: <00d601c5efdd$a97d76f0$c07e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dm28ak+b6r6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143407

 
> Magpie wrote:
 
> Actually, I think that the Gryff/Slyth rivalry might be getting 
more 
> damaging by causing people in both those houses to reject the 
qualities 
> associated with it so it goes beyond just being different.  Harry 
had to 
> access his "Slytherin side" in HBP, and it was interesting seeing 
him do it. 
> I think one could read a bit of Draco having to consider reaching 
for some 
> Gryffindor qualities throughout the year as well.  If everybody 
could accept 
> all parts of themselves in all the four houses as a positive thing, 
all the 
> houses might benefit, imo.  There's a difference, for instance, 
between a 
> Slytherin not putting courage above everything else like a 
Gryffindor and a 
> Slytherin being proud about not being courageous, if that makes 
sense.

Potioncat: 
I know I should snip more, I just don't know how. And I know I should 
provide canon...but right now I just can't get to it..so with 
apologies:

I think you are very right. JKR herself has said something along the 
line that Slytherin is a valid, real part of Hogwarts. She's also 
said something about accepting the entire person, and I think she's 
agreed that individuals have traits from each of the Houses. Many of 
us have seen several House Traits in an individual (cunning for 
Harry; bravery for Snape; loyalty for Ron, etc.) 

It seems to me, that denying a part of oneself (particularly for 
Hogwarts) is similar to splitting your soul. So to cut off the 
Slytherin nature or to remove Slytherin House from Hogwarts would be 
like splitting the soul.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 17:54:16 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:54:16 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dm1ujs+ng7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2ac8+568n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143408

> Alla wrote: 
> > Oh, and there is another reason why " reactions slower than they 
> > were" bugs me. That was a reason given to DE. Where Slughorn 
would 
> > learn it, especially if he is on the run and out of touch with 
> > everybody? 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Darn, there goes our "Good Slytherin." ;-)
> 
> He is repeating the line Snape gave LV, isn't he?

Alla:

Yes, he does and that is very strange to me. Now, even if you are 
completely convinced that this reason is a fake ( which I don't) and 
Dumbledore and Snape together came up with it, won't they came up 
with it for very SPECIFIC purposes, to tell certain people ( if it is 
a misinformation)? I doubt that they will go around telling everybody 
in the whole world that Dumbledore's reactions are " slower than they 
were".

I am trying to say that if it is a lie, it is a lie for  the benefit 
of Voldie's minions, IMO and then again I want to know how Slughorn 
learned about it.

If it is a truth, well than I am even more curious how Horace learned 
this information.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want him to be another DE in disguise, 
but I think it is strange.


Potioncat: 
> You've really gotten me thinking here. Another ESE!character for 
our 
> list. Slughorn says he didn't have time to cast the Dark Mark. Now, 
was 
> that a trick on DD's part?  He mentions there was no Dark Mark and 
> Sluggy doesn't say, "I wouldn't go that far, old chap!" He doesn't 
> say, "Only DEs know how to cast a Dark Mark." No, he says, "I 
didn't 
> have time." Did that tell DD something?

Alla:

LOL! Glad to be of service. :) Again, in this situation I would much 
prefer to see things where there is really nothing to worry about, 
but it is strange too, because just as Carol does I don't think about 
Dark Mark as sparkling thingy in the sky, but as a spell which is 
deeply evil.

I want to be wrong, I really do, because I think that discovering 
that Slughorn is evil would take a lot of depth from his character( 
and I think that so far he had been introduced as really in depth 
character, even more in depth than Snape, because we know more about 
Slugghorn motives, while with Snape we are often guessing), but I am 
sitting on the fence for now on the question of Slughorn loyalties.

I am just not sure what to think.




Potioncat: 
<SNIP>
 But, would DD hire a known DE for 
> staff at Hogwarts? Would he want a DE teaching his students...oops, 
> never mind. Of course he would.
> 
Alla:

LOL! Who? Dumbledore? Hire a DE? Never in a million years, the safety 
of his students  is too important to him. Didn't you know? MAHAHAHA! 
Just kidding of course.

JMO,

Alla.






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Wed Nov 23 17:41:24 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:41:24 +0100
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
References: <dm1a0v+9rb3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009c01c5f055$20132860$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143409

Claudia wrote:
> It's so interesting how readers percieve the same text totally
> different. Because for me it was clear after DD's injury was
> mentioned the first time, that DD was going to die during the book.
snip
> On the other hand, since English is not my mothertongue, I may be
> missing a lot of unspoken meaning within the text.

Miles:
I learnt English at school as well, but I don't think this is a problem of
proper comprehension of the text.
My feelings about this injury were quite the same and still are, and I think
this can be founded by regarding Rowling's style.

We know that Rowling pays very much attention in details and their
description. Every detail she describes noticeable closely has relevance -
either for a situation, a person, or for the plot of the entire series.
The injured arm is one of these details. It is mentioned quite often,
several people talk about it (so we can be sure that Harry's perception is
proper). So - if Rowling is not losing her plot, we can assume this injury
is important.
IMHO there is no point in interpretating this injury as *not* serious. Not
in a book of the J.K. Rowling I know.

For me, this dying arm of Dumbledore is not only a metaphor for Dumbledore
dying himself. My impression is, that Dumbledore is actually dying *because*
auf this injury. We are "watching" this arm for about ten months, and it
doesn't improve a bit.
Assuming, that Dumbledore is dying from the very beginning of HPB, and knows
about it, this is a strong clue for the judgement of Snape killing
Dumbledore in the end.

Miles







From xmilesx at gmx.de  Wed Nov 23 18:07:10 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:07:10 +0100
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
References: <dm1ujs+ng7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a201c5f058$b9dcc9d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143410

potioncat wrote:
> He is repeating the line Snape gave LV, isn't he?

Miles:
I think this is very thin ice to walk on, isn't it? It's probable that an
injured wand arm is quite a common problem when dealing with enchanted
objects, so Slughorn is just grabbing into the same box of wizarding
experience as Snape does. Your speculation is not disproved by canon, I must
admit, but I do not see a point for Dumbledore of getting a DE to Hogwarts
deliberately, endangering his students (you mentioned this yourself).

potioncat wrote:
> He mentions there was no Dark Mark and
> Sluggy doesn't say, "I wouldn't go that far, old chap!" He doesn't
> say, "Only DEs know how to cast a Dark Mark." No, he says, "I didn't
> have time." Did that tell DD something?

Miles:
But here you leave the ice of canon and completely walk on the water of
speculation. There ist absolutely no prove in canon, that only DEs are able
to cast the dark mark. It's possible (I read the pros and cons), but not
probable. (Winky was suspected to cast the mark - no one really believed it,
but no one said "she couldn't, she is not a deatheater" in GoF).

potioncat wrote:
> He avoids contact with students who come from known DE families, which
> could be a pretense on his part.

Miles:
Sometimes things can just be what they seem to be. Slughorn is a Slytherin
who does not want contact with DEs, because he is a white hat, not a black
hat. Slughorn is a friend of Dumbledore's, he is in hide since Voldemort
returned, he never acted for Voldemort in the past - more than enough proves
for me.

Miles






From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Nov 23 18:27:59 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:27:59 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dm25eq+71q2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2cbf+pfsg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143412

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi"
<muellem at b...>
> wrote:
 > >
> > c: I don't believe anyone knew about Peter back in 1980/1981 as
> being
> > a spy for Voldemort - it doesn't seem that way in the books.
> Also,
> > since Voldy kind of mistrusts his DE's, he probably kept them in
> the
> > dark about their roles. In GoF, when Snape is accused of being a
> DE,
> > he wasn't labeled as a spy, just a DE.
> >
> > But because of the Order of the Phoenix, I would think that
> Peter's
> > role would be kept hush-hush. His name never, as far as we have
> been
> > privy to, came up in an court/trial scenes as being a Death Eater.
>
> Ginny:
> Back in 1980/81 I'm not sure people didn't know about Peter.
> According to PoA, the Order thought "someone" close to the Potters
> were passing information and Sirius accused Peter of having been
> passing information to LV for a year before James and Lily's
death.

c: Yes, they thought that someone close to the Potters were passing
information, but the Order thought it was Sirius, not Peter. And PoA
is AFTER the fact. Sirius *knows* it was Peter, no one else does.
Sirius knows this because he suggested that Peter become the secret
keeper and lo-and-behold, the Potter's are betrayed. No one outside
of James, Lily, Sirius & Peter knew the switch was made.

I don't know what your point is. This is all AFTER the fact.

> Sirius also said that Peter was hiding from the LV's supporters who
> weren't in Azkaban because they thought Peter had caused LV's
> downfall when he had gone to the Potter's Peter's info. So, at
> least some of the DEs knew Peter gave the information and Peter
knew
> it (hence his hiding as a rat).
>

c: Again, AFTER the fact. Only Sirius KNOWS this, no one else.
Jeezzzz.... Sirius knew about Peter, which is why he confronted him
and why Peter blased a whole street full of muggles and planned his
*death*. Sirius was locked up in Azkaban without a trial, so no one
knew - only Sirius knew.


> About the court/trial, I might be wrong here, but I thought the
> scenes we've witnessed were after LV's downfall. I find it hard to
> believe Karkaroff would betray fellow DE's if LV was still in
> power. So, everyone assumed Peter to be dead. It would be
> pointless to accuse him.
>


c: Karkaroff accused dead people in the court scene - why not Peter
as well?

> > Ginny:
> Okay, but here is my main question. If the DEs knew that Peter
gave
> the information on LV, then it is really hard to believe that Snape
> didn't know that. So if Snape is really concerned that Sirius is
> dangerous to Harry, he must have thought both Peter and Sirius were
> on LVs side.

c: I don't believe the DE's knew until after PoA that Peter was
working on their side. Peter was Scabbers for 12 years and no one
knew that Scabbers was Peter.

AGAIN: Snape didn't know Peter was alive. He didn't even see or
hear anything about Peter being Scabbers in the Shack. And I doubt
highly that Snape knew that Peter was the person who betrayed James &
Lily back in 1981. LV *died* that night, so LV could not have told
Snape about Peter after the fact either. We don't know when Peter
was approached by LV or Peter approached LV. We have no idea when
that happened or who knew about it. Nothing in the books, with any
conversations with Peter & Snape, indicate that they had been working
on the same side since the early 1980's.

 > Ginny:
> Okay, I posted this badly and got really confused at the response.
> I meant, right after J&L were killed (in 1981), did Snape think
> Sirius went after Peter to kill him because he caused the downfall
> of LV or did Snape think Peter (grieving) went after Sirius because
> his friends were dead. I don't think Snape could have believed
> Peter went after Sirius out of grief (as everyone had thought)
> because he must have known Peter was the one to betray. I know
that
> is confusing. Even if Snape didn't know at the time that Peter was
> the one passing information, as the years went on, with some DEs
> knowing it was Peter passing information . . . he must have
realized
> it. I mean, he is friends with the Malfoys and teaches many of the
> DE's kids.

c: I don't know what Snape thought. I do know what the common
thought was - that Sirius was so upset that Voldemort was dead that
he went after Peter, who was James & Lily's friend to take him out.
Again, you & I are coming from two different places. You assume
that Snape knew about Peter's role in all of this back in 1981. I do
not. I do not believe for one minute that Snape or any other DE knew
about Peter's role with Voldemort. And as far as Peter passing info
as the years went by - Peter WAS A RAT!!! Scabbers, in fact. Living
with the Weasleys. The DE's were disbanded.


 > > c:I don't think Snape knew Peter's role with Voldemort until
AFTER
> > PoA & BEFORE GoF. Hence, I don't think there is anything to be
> > disappointed about :-)
> >
> Ginny:
> I hope you are right, but I need more convincing.

Well, I don't know why. I am a little confused on where you are
coming from here, as there is plenty of cannon to support that Sirius
was well-known as the SK. I mean, look at the conversations with
Snape & Peter - do you really get the impression they knew each other
well enough that Snape knew what Peter was up to back in 1981? Has
there been any indication with the graveyard scene that the DE's knew
Peter as a DE?

 > >
> > c:At that point and time, Snape still believed Sirius was the
> Secret
> > Keeper who betrayed James & Lily - no one told him otherwise (or
> at
> > least, someone with creditability) Dumbledore most likely
filled
> > Snape in after the scene in the Hospital Ward.
> >
> Ginny:
> Did Snape really still think Sirius was the Secret Keeper? Even
> though LV's supporters knew Peter gave the information?
>
>

c: Hold the presses, Ginny. Where are you getting this information
from? There is NO cannon that states that the DE's knew Peter was
the secret keeper. And there is cannon that everyone in the
wizarding world knew that Sirius was the Secret Keeper who betrayed
James & Lily.


> Ginny343, still feeling that at the beginning of PoA Snape knew
more
> than he was sharing. And maybe because he hated Sirius . . . but
> wouldn't that cause his problems with DD?
>

c: Sure Snape knew more than he was sharing. But only that Lupin was
a werewolf and he was certain Sirius would kill Potter. But Peter?
He didn't know Scabbers was Peter...no one did until Sirius figured
it out. I am not sure where you are reading into this with PoA. How
about some canon quotes to back up your theory - that might help
convince me that you are onto something. Otherwise, I will not be
responding anymore to this topic. I think this is out in left field
somewhere - sorry.

colebiancardi












From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 18:35:08 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:35:08 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <00a201c5f058$b9dcc9d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dm2cos+kgqp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143413

> potioncat wrote:
> > He is repeating the line Snape gave LV, isn't he?
> 
> Miles:
> I think this is very thin ice to walk on, isn't it? It's probable 
that an
> injured wand arm is quite a common problem when dealing with 
enchanted
> objects, so Slughorn is just grabbing into the same box of wizarding
> experience as Snape does. 

Alla:

I am not sure if the ice is so thin, actually,because while 
Slughorn's 
connections with DE are indeed speculation, the fact that he is 
indeed 
repeating Snape's line is not a speculation, but a fact. :-)

Now, the reasons why he does so could be totally innocent ... or 
not.:)

Miles:
Your speculation is not disproved by canon, 
I must
> admit, but I do not see a point for Dumbledore of getting a DE to 
Hogwarts
> deliberately, endangering his students (you mentioned this 
yourself).

Alla:
Who says anything about "deliberately"? IF Slughorn has connections 
with DE, it is not a given that Albus will know about, I think.

Actually, we DO know at least of one occasion when Dumbledore got DE 
in Hogwarts deliberately, no?

Now, Dumbledore may think that the guy is a former DE of course, but 
personally I am not so sure. :-)

JMO,

Alla.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 18:56:44 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:56:44 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dm1a0v+9rb3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2e1c+195p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143414

Alla wrote:
<snip> Slughorn first tells Dumbledore that he ought to think about
retirement and THEN narrator says " his pale gooseberry eyes had 
found Dumbledore's injured hand" implies that Slughorn ALREADY knows
why DD may want to think about retirement. <snip>


Carol responds:
Hi, Alla. You're right that the "had found" is past perfect tense and
implies completed action, but it only means that Slughorn's eyes
"found" DD's hand before he spoke, and the interruption of the
dialogue by this bit of action, along with the words "I see," suggests
that he is still looking at the hand as he speaks: "Well, maybe you
ought to think about retirement yourself. Reactions not what they
were, I see." He seems to be (semi)politely inquiring about the
injury, but there's no indication that he was previously aware of it,
much less that he knows what happened. In fact, he seems to be simply
assuming that DD's reactions have slowed as the result of old age.
(Perhaps his own have slowed with age and obesity though we see no
evidence that they have?)

This (natural) assumption fits with the cover story that Snape tells
Bellatrix: DD is getting old, his reactions have slowed, and the
battle in the DoM "shook" him (HBP Am. ed. 31)--this last statement
being an out-and-out lie as far as I can see. (IMO, Snape wants
Bellatrix [and Voldemort] to underestimate both Dumbledore and Harry,
but that's a topic for another thread.) And of course, Snape conceals
his own role in saving Dumbledore from the curse that caused the
blackened hand, as well as the exact nature of the "serious injury." 
Dumbledore himself uses the slowed-reactions-of-an-old-man idea much
later in the book ("The Lightning-Struck Tower"). It's just one more
example of his persistent use of partial truths to conceal important
information. In this case, as I said earlier, DD and Snape seem to
have agreed to provide the same wholly inadequate explanation for the
"serious injury."

Dumbledore doesn't argue with Slughorn, acknowledging that he's "quite
right" (i.e., his interpretation fits the cover story and is true
enough in its way). But he takes advantage of the opportunity to call
attention to the injured hand, shaking back his right sleeve and
spreading his hands wide, saying, "On the other hand--" and breaking
off. Harry interprets the gesture as a kind of shrug and takes the
phrase OTOH in its usual figurative sense, concluding that DD means
"age ha[s] its compensations" (HBP 67). But the second- or third-time
reader, with the benefit of hindsight, understands that the silent
message is quite different from Harry's interpretation. 

As I read the scene, DD is spreading his hands to show Slughorn the 
cracked ring, which he knows Slughorn will recognize, allowing
Slughorn to make the connections between the injured hand and the
uninjured one with the ring. Essentially, DD is saying (IMO), "Tom
Riddle turned this ring, which I know you recognize, into a Horcrux. I
destroyed the Horcrux, but it destroyed my wand hand. I need your
help, Horace. There are more Horcruxes to destroy." But, of course, he
doesn't want to say any of that in front of Harry at this point, nor
does he want to mention Snape's role in saving him from the Horcrux's
curse quite yet. (Annoyingly, he never gets around to giving either
Harry or the reader the full version of "that thrilling tale," and
apparently he never informed Slughorn, either.)

As for DD retiring, that seems to me to be the last thing he wants to
do. IMO, he's trying to get as much accomplished as possible in what
he knows will be Snape's last year at Hogwarts and which he probably
suspects will be his own last year as well. (If destroying one Horcrux
does this much damage, what might a second or a third one do? And he
may well know by now that Draco is trying to kill him, too.) I don't
think he's dying at the moment, but I do think he expects to die. But
retire? Never.

Carol, who was just going to write a few words about past perfect
tense and wrote a post instead






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 23 19:56:55 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:56:55 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Honeydukes Tunnel - Was:Re: 12 OWLs/CanOpener/....
In-Reply-To: <dlvvb6+e829@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F9DD61AFBD7F3F19557A6791550@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143415



Ceridwen  wrote:
  "Just a thought: At the time the castle was built, could Hogsmeade
have been within the Founders' protections? And if so, could it have
been an escape route from the town into the castle in case of
emergency?
The times were supposedly dangerous, with Muggles out to get wizards,
according to the story."

PJ:

I think Hogsmede may have originally been founded as a town where the 
teachers and tradespeople the school depended on could live.  It would have 
been very convenient to the school and could easily account for the tunnels. 
  A quick way to get back and forth from work to home in bad weather.

PJ





From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 20:12:50 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:12:50 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <dm2cbf+pfsg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2ig2+u6et@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143416

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...>
> wrote:
> > Ginny:
> > Did Snape really still think Sirius was the Secret Keeper? Even
> > though LV's supporters knew Peter gave the information?
> >
> 
> c: Hold the presses, Ginny. Where are you getting this information
> from? There is NO cannon that states that the DE's knew Peter was
> the secret keeper. And there is cannon that everyone in the
> wizarding world knew that Sirius was the Secret Keeper who betrayed
> James & Lily.
>  
> colebiancardi
>

PoA, Am. 368-
"You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said 
Black.  "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard 
things in Azkaban, Peter. . . They all think you're dead, or you'd 
have to answer to them. . . . I've heard them screaming all sorts of 
things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser 
double-crossed them. Voldemort met his downfall there.  And not all 
Voldemort's supporters ended up in Azkaban, did they? There are still 
plenty out here, biding their time, pretending they've seen the error 
of their ways. . . . If they ever got wind that you were still alive, 
Peter --" 

Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew Peter 
was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to 
Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it was 
Sirius.  It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too much into 
it.  At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters are mad at 
Peter for some reason.  But if everyone thinks this is nothing and I 
am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)

Ginny343







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 23 20:20:07 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:20:07 -0000
Subject: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <00a201c5f058$b9dcc9d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dm2itn+dptt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143417

 
> Miles:
> But here you leave the ice of canon and completely walk on the 
water of
> speculation. 

Potioncat:
Oh, absolutely! This is pure speculation, and it's all Alla's fault 
with that question of hers! It never crossed my mind before. Once 
Thanksgiving Dinner is made, eaten, cleaned up and recovered from, I 
hope to go back and look at any canon on Dark Marks and who can cast 
them. I also plan to do my next read of HBP with an eye out for 
Slughorn. (Anyone who time before is welcomed to go ahead and report 
back ;-)

I haven't forgotten who was in Slughonr's memory. Sluggy was pretty 
thick with several pre-DEs. And I'm wondering if he hasn't collected 
someone who actually collected him!

Potioncat, who positively must go make the pumpkin pies. Does anyone 
have a recipe for Pumpkin Juice? My youngest is driving me crazy 
about it. And may all of you, whether or not you celebrate 
Thanksgiving, have much to be thankful for!






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 23 20:33:37 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:33:37 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <dm2ig2+u6et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2jn1+vc6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143418

Ginny wrote: 
> Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew Peter 
> was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to 
> Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it was 
> Sirius.  It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too much 
into 
> it.  At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters are mad at 
> Peter for some reason.  But if everyone thinks this is nothing and I 
> am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)


Potioncat:
No you are not off base. The question is, how many DEs knew that Peter 
was the informer? The ones in Azkaban were not able to communicate with 
the ones who walked free. Although Snape is obviously a double agent (I 
think that's the right term) he may not have known it was Peter who 
betrayed the Potters. Several of his comments place him in the Sirius-
as-traitor camp.

We've seen at one, maybe two situations where he seems out of the DE 
loop. I say "seems" because we really can't know. One is the DoM plan 
and the other is the Vanishing Cabinet mission. It's hard to tell when 
he's been kept in the dark and when he's pretended not to know. 

Potioncat...who really is making a pie.








From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 21:24:59 2005
From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:24:59 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment
In-Reply-To: <dm0vn6+4elc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2mnb+dgqa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143419

Jen wrote:
> Jen: After re-reading GOF, it struck me Mad-Eye might be able to 
>see magical concealment. He can see through invisibility cloaks and 
> that's a form of concealment, right? OK, maybe I'm stretching 
>there, but no one else except Dumbledore is able to see through 
> invisibility cloaks.
> 
> Other than Mad-eye, I think there's a chance one of the 
characters, > maybe even Harry, will discover an ability to see 
magic as >Dumbledore did. 

Saraquel:
I always had the impression that rather than see with his physical 
eyes, DD sensed people and magic in a 6th sense sort of way (for 
want of a better expression).  In the cave he used his hands, 
passing them over the rockface.  As a masseur, I can sense things 
through my hands.  By putting them over someone's body without 
touching it, I can often pick up what needs working on. The hands 
act like sensors and the interpretation of the 'data' is mainly 
intuitive, I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but it is not just 
the rational mind.

Most people have experienced the situation when they realise that 
someone is behind them, not because they heard or saw the other 
person, but because they suddenly sense them.  Sometimes it is 
possible to know who that person is before seeing or hearing them, 
because you recognise their energy.  It is this type of sense that I 
imagined DD to have developed to a high degree.  Hence he does not 
have to see through an invisibility cloak with his physical eyes, 
but rather senses the presence of a hidden person's energy.  Each of 
us has a unique energy, hence the signature which DD was talking 
about and his ability to know who was concealed. So DD would 
recognise the presence of all the people in a room, whether they 
were covered by an invisibility cloak or not. 

I imagine that magic is the practised harnessing of energy, hence if 
magic has been performed by an individual, they have harnessed 
energy and moulded it to perform a spell, in doing so they would 
leave a sort of imprint of their own energy as well. So regarding 
magical concealment, I imagine that the results of a spell can be 
hidden, but the fact that magic has been done leaves a disturbance 
in the force, Luke, which it would be impossible to disguise. 

About Moody, his eye allows him to see *through* things in a 
physical way, but I personally don't think that he is able to pick 
up at the energy level, like DD.  One thing that has always 
intrigued me, and I wonder if it will become relevant in some way - 
is the Boggart in the Cupboard at Grimauld Place.  What did Moody 
actually see.  He looked up through the walls from the kitchen, into 
the cupboard (OotP prefect party).  Was the boggart aware that it 
was being watched?  Lupin (POA boggart lesson) said that no-one 
knows what a boggart actually looks like. So what did Moody see?  
Did the boggart know it was being looked at and change into what 
Moody fears most, or did Moody see the boggart in its natural form?

Saraquel






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 21:55:15 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:55:15 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <dm2ig2+u6et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2og3+ajje@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143420

Ginny wrote:
"PoA, Am. 368-You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," 
said Black. "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I 
heard things in Azkaban, Peter. . . They all think you're dead, or 
you'd have to answer to them. . . ."<snip>
Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew Peter 
was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to 
Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it 
was Sirius. It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too much 
into it. At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters are mad 
at Peter for some reason. But if everyone thinks this is nothing and 
I am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)" <snip>


CH3ed:
I agree with Ginny that the DEs knew Peter was the Secret Keeper 
(had Sirius been the SK and blabbed to Peter, that info still can't 
have been passed on to LV because in order to be able to find the 
Potters LV had to have heard it from the SK himself...like Harry had 
to read the note from DD in order to see 12 GP). So the most obvious 
conclusion is to extend that Snape knew that Peter was the betrayer 
and murderer(of 12 muggles) and not Sirius. 

However, it is still possible that Snape didn't know about Peter 
being a DE. The DEs are so mistrustful they don't even all know each 
other (tho I'd like to hear JKR explain how that is since all the 
DEs are supposed to show up whenever LV touches the mark on one of 
their arms). 

I think that even if Snape really knew that Sirius was innocent in 
PoA, his actions in that book don't necessarily means he is in LV's 
camp. When it comes to dealing with the Marauders and Harry, Snape's 
emotions is quite strong. The man is a malicious git (trying to 
poison Neville's toad, ignoring Hermione's growing tooth after she 
got hit by Malfoy's spell in GoF, disgusting tasks during 
detentions, etc), so I can see even a DDM Snape try to send Sirius 
back to Azkaban even when he is innocent. 
:O) CH3ed






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 21:57:29 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:57:29 -0000
Subject: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dm25np+sajp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2ok9+e6be@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143421


> Magpie:
> 
> I think he probably had to screw up his courage plenty of times 
> during the year, and probably saw himself as having to protect his 
> family.  It may be inverted in that he's dedicating himself to the 
> wrong power, but I still see plenty of similarities in what he sees 
> himself as doing, especially early in the year.  A lot of his story 
> in HBP is a twisted, shadow version of plenty of Gryffindor values, 
> imo.  Though in the end in his case refraining from killing was the 
> right thing to do instead of killing.
> 
a_svirn:
If Draco's behaviour under the circumstances can be interpreted as 
bravery, I am really interested to know how his cowardice would look 
like. It's not like his failure to kill Dumbledore was a conscious 
choice on his part. I agree that he was under a lot of pressure, but 
if anything he emerged out of his ordeal as a true Slyth ? ambitious 
and very-very canning. 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 23 22:40:15 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:40:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
References: <dm2ok9+e6be@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008a01c5f07e$e008dd30$d57e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143422


a_svirn:
If Draco's behaviour under the circumstances can be interpreted as
bravery, I am really interested to know how his cowardice would look
like. It's not like his failure to kill Dumbledore was a conscious
choice on his part. I agree that he was under a lot of pressure, but
if anything he emerged out of his ordeal as a true Slyth - ambitious
and very-very canning.

Magpie:

I think his whole story, imo, contains twisted versions of values associated 
with Gryffindor.  He's trying to be a man, avenge his father, protect his 
family, win glory, trying to do an assigned task on his own.  He grows up a 
lot.  Dumbledore lets him so that in the end he is able to get to a place 
where he can make a choice: you have me in your power, you're the one with 
the wand, you got further than anyone thought you would--what are you going 
to do?

I assume his cowardice would look like the way it looks on Peter Pettigrew: 
surrounded by Death Eaters and threats on his life and his family's life if 
he doesn't do Voldemort's wishes, he would kill Dumbledore.

-m






Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from 
posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links











From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 23 22:50:37 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:50:37 -0000
Subject: Honeydukes Tunnel - Was:Re: 12 OWLs/CanOpener/....
In-Reply-To: <dlvvb6+e829@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2rnt+sn1b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143423

CH3ed:
> I hadn't thought that Hogmeade could have been included to Hogwarts 
> ground. :O) Interesting idea! It would make sense to have an escape 
> route. But I would think it would be a route to escape out of the 
> castle rather than in since the password protection is required to 
get 
> in the tunnel from Hogwarts end, but not when you come in from 
> Honeydukes(tho the entrance in the cellar is designed to be hard to 
> find).

Ceridwen:
I can't imagine why they would want to escape from a secure castle, 
into an unsecure town.  It would make more sense the other way 
around.  The password would have been put on the Hogwarts side of the 
tunnel to keep students from hoofing off to town when they weren't 
supposed to (The password might even have been placed on the Hogwarts 
side of the tunnel after Wizarding secrecy had been enacted into 
law).  In an emergency, the people would have better use of their 
time, IMO, than standing around giving the password on the Honeydukes 
side, they would be fleeing for their lives and safety.

I doubt if we'll ever get an explanation for it, unless someone asks 
JKR outright.  So, I guess it's to each his or her own.

Ceridwen.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 23 23:47:21 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:47:21 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <dm2ig2+u6et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2v29+lb41@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143424

Ginny wrote:
<snip quote>
> 
> Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew Peter
was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to
Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it was
Sirius.  It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too much into
it.  At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters are mad at
Peter for some reason.  But if everyone thinks this is nothing and I
am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)

Carol responds:
To me, Snape's actions in PoA seem to indicate that he really thought
that Sirius had betrayed the Potters and he's angry because he, Snape,
tried to prevent their deaths (despite hating James) and failed
because of Sirius's supposed treachery. He has believed that Sirius
was capable of murder since they were both sixteen (the so-called
Prank). He *wants* to believe Sirius capable of blowing up twelve
Muggles and PP, and Sirius's actions in PoA (breaking into Hogwarts
twice, slashing the bedcurtains and the painting) seem to confirm his
belief that Black is a homicidal maniac. Snape also *wants* Lupin to
be guilty of helping Sirius into the castle since he believes that
Lupin was a willing participant in the Prank. He furiously refuses to
hear anything that contradicts these cherished beliefs. Also, he only
overhears part of the conversation in the Shrieking Shack and has no
way of knowing that PP is alive and in the Shrieking Shack with them.
(He's shocked later when the black dog transforms into Sirius,
indicating that he still disbelieved what little he heard of the
Animagi story until that point.)

As for the DEs talking about Peter in Azkaban, since we're told byt
Sirius most of the Azkaban prisoners quickly falling into their own
black thoughts (or insanity or even death) because of the Dementors,
the passage you quoted probably relates to the four DEs whose arrival
we know he witnessed some months after Godric's Hollow: Bellatrix, the
Lestrange brothers, and Barty Jr. I'm guessing that Bellatrix, at one
time LV's most trusted follower, knew who the spy was and later, after
Voldemort was vaporized and most of the other DEs were arrested,
confided this information to her husband, her brother-in-law, and the
young Barty Jr. I seriously doubt that the other DEs, including Snape,
knew about Pettigrew. After all, the fewer people who know about a
spy, the more effective that spy will be. Even fewer would know that
he was the Potters' Secret Keeper, an arrangement that lasted only a
week and which I'll discuss later in this post.

We know from Karkaroff that the Death Eaters didn't necessarily know
one another, and it seems likely that PP is one that most DEs didn't
know. For one thing, he was a former Gryffindor and an Order member,
and they would not have trusted him. I'm not even sure that he was a
Death Eater at this point, just a spy. (Snape apparently was spying
for Dumbledore without being a member of the Order of the Phoenix
since he's not in the photo that Moody shows Harry; no one except DD
knew about his role. Sirius certainly didn't. As secretive as
Voldemort is, it seems logical that he would make a similar
arrangement: Peter would spy for him without the DEs knowing of his role.)

It's possible, of course, that Sirius's remark about the DEs knowing
about PP is just a lapse in consistency on JKR's part (like the
occasional references to the Lestranges as a married couple when we
know there were three of them), but I think only the four DEs
previously mentioned knew about Peter--and informed the other
prisoners (those who were still sane enough to understand) of what
they thought they knew. Or maybe those four only talked among
themselves, with Barty Jr. quickly falling out of the mad conversation
as he succumbed to the Dementors. Maybe he's one of those who screamed
about it in their sleep. Certainly there was no idle chit chat in that
horrible place.

As for Peter being the Secret Keeper, that's a completely separate
matter that the DEs were unlikely to know about. Only a chosen few
would know (Dumbledore, who suggested the idea; the Potters; Sirius
Black; PP; and possibly Lupin, who may have been present when the idea
was suggested). And certainly no one, not even Dumbledore or Lupin,
knew that the intended Secret Keeper had been changed from Sirius to
Peter a week before the Potters' deaths. So even if some of the DEs
knew that PP was a spy, it's most unlikely that they knew he was the
SK, or even that a Fidelius Charm had been placed on the Potters.
Snape, *who was already teaching at Hogwarts*, may have been told by
DD about the charm being placed and that James intended for Sirius to
be the SK, but he (Snape) definitely would not have known, any more
than DD did, that James (and Lily) had decided to accept Sirius's
suggestion and make switch to PP. He may not have even known about the
Fidelius Charm at all. It would not have been common knowledge until
after Voldemort's fall.

Carol, hoping that Ginny finds at least some of these speculations
persuasive








From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Wed Nov 23 23:48:05 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:48:05 -0000
Subject: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?  (Was Re: Snape-the Hero...)
In-Reply-To: <dm00um+m9cj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm2v3l+joiq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143425

Lucianam:

Just stepping in to agree that whoever lets a dog burn to death is a 
creep, but wasn't Snape fleeing from an angry hippogriff? Perhaps if 
he had turned back to save the dog, Buckbeak (Witherwings) would have 
killed him. Snape was running, he barely had time to reach the 
Hogwarts gates and Deapparate.

And maybe he never noticed the yelping dog. After all, didn't JKR 
write he was just in much pain? Pain tends to make people overlook 
what's happening around them.

Hoping Snape is not a total creep, even if he's a loyal Death Eater,
Lucianam








From agdisney at msn.com  Wed Nov 23 23:30:21 2005
From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:30:21 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
References: <dm2ig2+u6et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV30163C8D0DB2D21220285CF550@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143426

Ginny343 wrote:
> PoA, Am. 368-
> "You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said 
> Black.  "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I 
> heard things in Azkaban, Peter. . . 
>
> Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew 
> Peter was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to 
> Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it 
> was Sirius.  It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too 
> much into it.  At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters 
> are mad at Peter for some reason.  But if everyone thinks this is 
> nothing and I am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)


Andie:
After reading this canon, I have to agree with Ginny that LV's supporters had to know Peter was passing info to LV.  Maybe he 
wasn't a true DE with the black mark and all but unless every DE 
didn't know every other DE (so when caught no one could rat on all) 
they had to know each other.

Instead of being a DE, could Wormtail have been a "servant" to LV &
the DE's?  At the end of GOF, I see him as being less then a DE.  He does the job, cuts off his hand & casts the spell for LV to return but I feel that he does not meet the "qualifications" of Malfoy and the others.  And then in HBP, he lives at Snape's and is ordered around and treated as a servant.

Just a thought.

Andie







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 00:02:42 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:02:42 -0000
Subject: extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <008a01c5f07e$e008dd30$d57e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dm2vv2+rq4f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143427

> Magpie:
> 
> I think his whole story, imo, contains twisted versions of values 
associated 
> with Gryffindor.  He's trying to be a man, avenge his father, 
protect his 
> family, win glory, trying to do an assigned task on his own.  He 
grows up a 
> lot.  

a_svirn:
There is nothing particularly Gryffindorish about all of the above. 
It's not like Gryffs have a patent on loyalty, vengeance and being a 
man. As for winning glory it sounds like a worthy ambition for a 
Slyth. 


> Magpie:
He grows up a lot.  

a_svirn:
True. And he has finally acquired a third dimension. But I still say 
he's grown into a fine Slytherin. 

> Magpie:
> I assume his cowardice would look like the way it looks on Peter 
Pettigrew: 
> surrounded by Death Eaters and threats on his life and his 
family's life if 
> he doesn't do Voldemort's wishes, he would kill Dumbledore.
 
a_svirn:
Actually, it was Dumbledore life that was threatened on the Tower. 
And like Pettigrew Draco had done Voldemort's bidding all along, 
which is why he was surrounded by DE in the first place. It is true 
that Dumbledore had given him a choice, but he didn't make one: 
Snape did it for him. 






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 24 00:05:59 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:05:59 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <4g7bqh$3u3fcg@smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net>
Message-ID: <dm3057+8vbn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143428

Alora wrote:  <snipped> I don't think Snape is evil, I think he's 
spying
> for the 
> right side.  He knows Harry is the one that will be able to bring 
> down Voldemort, and he's done what he could to help (occlumens).  
> That, and keeping Harry grounded, I suppose, by being so nasty to 
> him for the last 6 years ;). 
> 
> Does anyone else understand it this way?  Thanks for listening :)
> 
> 
> Tammy wrote:

> That's basically the reading I've come away with, Alora,
> that Snape, while being a nasty, mean, greasy git and not someone 
I'd ever
> REALLY want in frequent close proximity (regardless of the Snape-
fics I've
> thoroughly enjoyed), let alone ever hire to watch and teach my 
kids, he is
> sincerely on Dumbledore's 'side'.
>  

Lucianam:

Hi there. Isn't Snape a puzzle! I think it's so funny that I happen 
to have, well, sort of the exact opposite of you guys' oppinions. If 
I got it right, you understand Snape is a nasty, mean man, but ever 
loyal to Dumbledore. So, he's not completely 'good' or 'evil' 
according to you; same here with me but since HBP, more specifically 
Snape's answers to Bellatrix in Chapter 3, I suspect he's loyal to 
Voldemort.

And I used to think he was a horrible person, mean almost to the 
point of being evil, until I read Snape's Worst Memory in OotP. And 
the Flight of the Prince chapter in HBP was also touching 
(description of his being in great pain and the capslock 'DON'T CALL 
ME A COWARD!' line).

So now I find myself thinking of Snape of a guy who is not all that 
bad, but who unfortunately chose to ignore his good side and chose 
to be a Death Eater.

But I suppose in the end Snape might be revealed as loyal to 
Dumbledore (I think that will be more difficult to write, though), 
or as a truly evil man determined to surpass Voldemort and become 
the next Dark Lord. Anything Snape goes.

Lucianam








From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 24 00:33:37 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:33:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] extra! extra! "Sorting Hat, never wrong" (wasRe: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
References: <dm2vv2+rq4f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00f301c5f08e$b66ac500$d57e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143429


> a_svirn:
> There is nothing particularly Gryffindorish about all of the above.
> It's not like Gryffs have a patent on loyalty, vengeance and being a
> man. As for winning glory it sounds like a worthy ambition for a
> Slyth.

Magpie:

No, they don't have a patent on it.  That's part of my point.

> a_svirn:
> True. And he has finally acquired a third dimension. But I still say
> he's grown into a fine Slytherin.

Magpie:

Yes--I'm not making a case for him growing into a Gryffindor.  He's still 
Slytherin and Harry is still Gryffindor, but that does not make them 
completely alien to each other.

> a_svirn:
> Actually, it was Dumbledore life that was threatened on the Tower.
> And like Pettigrew Draco had done Voldemort's bidding all along,
> which is why he was surrounded by DE in the first place. It is true
> that Dumbledore had given him a choice, but he didn't make one:
> Snape did it for him.

Magpie:

He didn't make a choice except for not to act.  (His life and his family's 
lives have been threatened if he does not kill Dumbledore.)  But Dumbledore 
gave him a choice after Malfoy got to that place on the Tower. That was the 
moment when Malfoy is confronted with the whole concept of bad faith (after 
beginning to understand mortality as a concept) and the concept of choosing 
himself to kill or not to kill.  He began to lower his wand, that's the only 
hint of what he might have done. But he didn't choose definitively one way 
or another--Snape killed Dumbledore and he ran away.  He postponed making 
his own choice.  But that is still a very different story than Pettigrew's, 
putting him in a different position for the final book.

-m 





From fauntine_80 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 01:43:51 2005
From: fauntine_80 at yahoo.com (fauntine_80)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:43:51 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm206p+aaup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm35sn+86ao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143430


Alora wrote:
> HBP (US edition)ch. 28, page 604:
> 
> "Kill me then," panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only 
rage 
> and contempt.  "Kill me like you killed him, you coward-"
> 
> "DON'T-" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, 
> inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling 
> dog stuck in the burning house behind them- "CALL ME COWARD!"
> 
> Here, I think he's in terrible pain at having had to kill 
> Dumbledore, and Harry has just called him a coward for doing so.  
I 
> think the pain of Dumbledore's death (if he is dead) is tearing 
him 
> apart, and then Harry (whom he dislikes already) only adds to his 
> anger.

> 
> Does anyone else understand it this way?  Thanks for listening :)
> 
> Alora


Wow, it has been forever since I have posted here.  Anyway, back on 
track...

I totally agree with you!

My first inclination that Snape was not evil was that Dumbledore 
begged "Snape, please."  That's not like Dumbledore at all.  I think 
he was begging for Snape to do the task.  Also, when I reread the 
book, Hagrid recalls that Dumbledore and Snape were arguing in the 
forest and that Dubledore told Snape that he just had to do it. (I 
can't find the chapter right now...)But, I think they were arguing 
over the unbreakable vow and Dumbledore told him he had to do it.

Anyway, I didn't think about the description of Snape being in pain 
as his pain of killing Dumbledore... that's really insightful! 

Cheers!
It's good to be back

~Fauntine






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Thu Nov 24 02:10:40 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:10:40 +0100
Subject: He hates Hagrid?  (Was: Re: 'Foy or Fang: Which was who Snape must protect?)
References: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com> <43849151.5010208@telus.net>
Message-ID: <014f01c5f09c$453b8460$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143431

Kathryn Jones wrote:
>      Actually, I agree that Hagrid knows enough about Snape to be
> absolutely convinced about certain beliefs and I have always said that
> Hagrid knows a lot more than he is saying about a lot of things.
snip
>      Hagrid's behaviour, to me, is more than just a transferred
> loyalty
> because of Dumbledore. Hagrid knows the full story about everybody.

Miles:
Is there anything in canon that supports this ?
Hagrid as a keeper of any secret is a disaster - especially in PS/SS. He ist
tricked not only by Quirrel/Voldemort, but as well by Harry and his friends.
I do not say that Hagrid is not trustworthy in total  - but he has
weaknesses which are quite easy to identify.
For sure, Hagrid blabs not every secret he knows about - but the chance is
always good enough. Would Dumbledore tell Hagrid secrets about Snape, that
would cost his life when Voldemort would know about it? Would he tell
Hagrid, whereas he doesn't tell any other member of the Order (we learn it
at the end of HBP - it was not only Harry, who never learnt the secret of
Dumbledores trust in Snape)?

Miles






From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Nov 24 02:26:06 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:26:06 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <dm2ig2+u6et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm38bu+cmrp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143432

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...> wrote:
>
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Ginny:
> > > Did Snape really still think Sirius was the Secret Keeper? Even
> > > though LV's supporters knew Peter gave the information?
> > >
> > 
> > c: Hold the presses, Ginny. Where are you getting this information
> > from? There is NO cannon that states that the DE's knew Peter was
> > the secret keeper. And there is cannon that everyone in the
> > wizarding world knew that Sirius was the Secret Keeper who betrayed
> > James & Lily.
> >  
> > colebiancardi
> >
> 
> PoA, Am. 368-
> "You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said 
> Black.  "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard 
> things in Azkaban, Peter. . . They all think you're dead, or you'd 
> have to answer to them. . . . I've heard them screaming all sorts of 
> things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser 
> double-crossed them. Voldemort met his downfall there.  And not all 
> Voldemort's supporters ended up in Azkaban, did they? There are still 
> plenty out here, biding their time, pretending they've seen the error 
> of their ways. . . . If they ever got wind that you were still alive, 
> Peter --" 
> 

> Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew Peter 
> was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to 
> Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it was 
> Sirius.  It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too much into 
> it.  At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters are mad at 
> Peter for some reason.  But if everyone thinks this is nothing and I 
> am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)
> 
> Ginny343
>

ah, but on the next page when Peter is trying to defend himself, he
offers up another reason:
"If Voldemort's supporters were after me, it was because I put one of
their best men in Azkaban - the spy, Sirius Black!"

so, the first thing from the quote you posted.  LV's supporters in
Azkaban are angry at Peter but they do think he is dead.  They think
that Peter was the one who caused the downfall of LV and doublecrossed
him.  So, was it only those supporters in Azkaban that *knew*?  Or
were they insane at that point, ranting with demented prose?  

Lupin stated "Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter" p. 351 Am Ed
Hardcover PoA.   Also, it could be as Peter stated.  If the DE's in
Azkaban were angry at Peter, it could be that it was because of
Sirius's downfall.  No one in the wizarding world thought it was a
stretch for Black to be a DE - he went to prison without even a trial;
 his family were purebloods and they had a dark history.  Even
Sirius's brother was a DE - even though Regulus tried to leave.
 

also, Snape and other supporters have been kept in the dark what
others have done.  Snape didn't know about Lucius & the Diary in CoS,
Snape didn't know about Quirrel, Snape & the other followers didn't
know about Barty Jr, and since Snape was headquartered at Hogwarts at
the time of the Potter's death, I don't think, IMHO, that he received
an owl stating that Peter was the secret keeper.  Remember, this had
to have been done at the last moment.  It was barely a week that had
passed since the Fidelius Charm had been performed.  Also, if Peter is
a spy, I don't think it wise or prudent to shout that out as common
knowledge even amongst the team of DE's.  If one gets caught, such as
Karkaroff did, they could spill the beans.  I don't think LV would
take that chance with his spies.  I wonder if it was common knowledge
amongst all the DE's that Snape was a spy back in the early days.  In
the spy game world, the less people that know your true role, the
better.  I don't think it is even common knowledge amongst all the
Order's members that Snape is spy for DD.  But I could be wrong.  It
is never really talked about. 

The bigger question for me is how long was Peter a DE prior to LV's
downfall in 1981?   He is considered a DE in GoF - Voldy states that
Peter returned to him out of fear, not loyality. 


colebiancardi
(I don't really think Peter was ever a spy - I think he was a traitor
- whether he made the first advance towards LV or LV cornered him - I
think he was fighting for his life and betrayed the Potters.  Now, he
snoops around Snape on LV's orders, but everyone knows it.  That isn't
too spy-like; more like a nuisance)






From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Thu Nov 24 02:26:08 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:26:08 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? Re: What does Slughorn knows about Dumbledore's injury?
In-Reply-To: <dm2e1c+195p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm38c0+arst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143433

Carol wrote:
 
> This (natural) assumption fits with the cover story that Snape tells
> Bellatrix: DD is getting old, his reactions have slowed, and the
> battle in the DoM "shook" him (HBP Am. ed. 31)--this last statement
> being an out-and-out lie as far as I can see. <snip>

I actually disagree with the assessment that the battle in the DoM 
didn't shake Dumbledore. I think that it did...he certainly seemed 
frightened when Voldemort took control of Harry. 

Quick_Silver










From aherrmie at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 24 02:15:02 2005
From: aherrmie at earthlink.net ( Amy)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:15:02 -0600
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <BAY108-DAV30163C8D0DB2D21220285CF550@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <E1Ef6dK-0007Ck-Te@smtpauth04.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143434

 

Ginny343 wrote:
> PoA, Am. 368-
> "You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said 
> Black.  "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I 
> heard things in Azkaban, Peter. . . 
>
> Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew 
> Peter was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information to 
> Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world thought it 
> was Sirius.  It is possible I am reading it wrong or reading too 
> much into it.  At any rate, it sounds like Voldemort's supporters 
> are mad at Peter for some reason.  But if everyone thinks this is 
> nothing and I am off base, I will gladly drop it. :)


Hi All - 

 

I've been lurking on this list for a week or so. This is my first post, so
forgive me if I make any faux pas.

 

I've been following this thread with interest. While I agree with Ginny that
the quote from POA indicates that at least some DE knew about PP,

I don't think that this means Snape did. LV, while addressing the DE's
during the graveyard scene in GOF, makes reference to a DE whom he believes
has left him forever.

I think that he is referring to Snape, but if so, doesn't this mean that
Snape was no longer a double agent? That LV believed him to have totally
gone over to the other side?

In that case, it is very possible that Snape would have no knowledge of PP
as a DE, or of any further DE activity immediately prior to the events in
Godric's Hollow. If LV is not referring to Snape, I have no idea what to
think!

 

Amy










From kjones at telus.net  Thu Nov 24 02:56:50 2005
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:56:50 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] He hates Hagrid?
In-Reply-To: <014f01c5f09c$453b8460$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
References: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com> <43849151.5010208@telus.net> <014f01c5f09c$453b8460$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <43852BF2.4000203@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143435

Miles wrote:

> Miles:
> Is there anything in canon that supports this ?
> Hagrid as a keeper of any secret is a disaster - especially in PS/SS. He ist
> tricked not only by Quirrel/Voldemort, but as well by Harry and his friends.
> I do not say that Hagrid is not trustworthy in total  - but he has
> weaknesses which are quite easy to identify.
> For sure, Hagrid blabs not every secret he knows about - but the chance is
> always good enough. Would Dumbledore tell Hagrid secrets about Snape, that
> would cost his life when Voldemort would know about it? Would he tell
> Hagrid, whereas he doesn't tell any other member of the Order (we learn it
> at the end of HBP - it was not only Harry, who never learnt the secret of
> Dumbledores trust in Snape)?
> 
> Miles

KJ writes:

    That is what I find so interesting about Hagrid. Dumbledore trusted 
Hagrid to go get Baby Harry. Hagrid might even have had the care of 
Harry for those "missing hours". Dumbledore trusted Hagrid to pick up 
the stone, which he apparently knew Voldemort would be trying to steal. 
In HBP, Hagrid makes it quite clear that he knew about Snape spying for 
Dumbledore, which presumably should have been kept quiet.
    Hagrid went to school with Voldemort and yet Harry has never asked 
him about what he remembers of him. Hagrid also knew James, Sirius, 
Peter, Remus and Snape as children. Harry has never thought to ask about 
what he knows. Hagrid would have known all about the prank. Hagrid was 
there when Snape returned to spy for Dumbledore. I'm willing to bet that 
he knows something about that as well.
    Hagrid does not lie well, as we saw, when he told Harry that Snape 
did not hate him. That lie made it clear that Hagrid knew all about 
Snape's feelings for Harry.
    For a character who is made to look naive, and gullible, Hagrid can 
really keep his mouth shut most of the time. I'm wondering if JKR will 
use him to explain a great deal of the back story in book 7.
KJ




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 02:56:11 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:56:11 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm38c0+arst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm3a4b+psaa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143436

> Carol wrote:
>  
> > This (natural) assumption fits with the cover story that Snape 
tells
> > Bellatrix: DD is getting old, his reactions have slowed, and the
> > battle in the DoM "shook" him (HBP Am. ed. 31)--this last 
statement
> > being an out-and-out lie as far as I can see. <snip>

Quick_silver:
> I actually disagree with the assessment that the battle in the DoM 
> didn't shake Dumbledore. I think that it did...he certainly seemed 
> frightened when Voldemort took control of Harry. 

Alla:

Snape tells Bella that Dumbledore sustained serious injury because 
his 
reactions slowed down AFTER battle in DOM, so I don't think that for 
example Betsy's argument somewhere in this thread that Dumbledore 
does 
not show slowing of reactions during the battle is very strong one.

I am completely with Quick_silver here - during the battle in MOM 
for 
all we know Dumbledore may have sustained one of the biggest shock 
moments in his life, if he indeed loves Harry as deeply as he claims.

For all we know, he felt completely helpless and powerless and he 
had 
no clue how to save Harry for all we know. Dumbledore does not tell 
Harry in his final speech in OOP that " I saved you", he says "your 
heart saved you".

 Is it such a  big stretch to assume that such huge stress indeed 
slowed down his reactions? I think it is a reasonable assumption to 
make. 

Yes, I still do not see any claims in Snape's speech to Bella that 
had 
been outright disproved by the canon. To me, it is a very strong 
possibility that everything or almost everything that Snape said is 
a 
truth. It also could be lie of course...

Actually, the part of Snape's speech that is the strongest argument 
that he is NOT a good guy to me is his bragging about the murder of 
Eveline Vance (I did read the argument on somebody's LJ, but I 
cannot remember who it was- I think it was Junediamanti, but not 
sure). On all other objectionable parts it could be argued either 
way, but ao far in canon there is nothing that disproves that Snape 
took part in her murder, not even a hint, IMO.

JMO,

Alla






From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Thu Nov 24 03:38:42 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:38:42 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm3a4b+psaa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm3ck2+25u0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143437


Alla:
> Actually, the part of Snape's speech that is the strongest 
argument 
> that he is NOT a good guy to me is his bragging about the murder 
of 
> Eveline Vance (I did read the argument on somebody's LJ, but I 
> cannot remember who it was- I think it was Junediamanti, but not 
> sure). On all other objectionable parts it could be argued either 
> way, but ao far in canon there is nothing that disproves that 
Snape 
> took part in her murder, not even a hint, IMO.


Quick_Silver:
Agreeing with Alla here the Vance murder is the one thing that makes 
me doubt that Snape is completely reformed. 

Either it's a genuine slip up on Snape's part (i.e. an accident) at 
which point the idea of a competent spy!Snape is dealt a serious 
blow (which isn't a problem IMO...I've always thought that Snape was 
a rather pathetic spy to begin with). 

It could be a sign of Snape's undying loyalty to Voldemort but I 
don't think the series is headed in that direction.

Or it could be a warning that Snape really doesn't have any true 
morals and is a hypocrite. It'd be a bit rich if he's giving up 
Order members to mention his cover while scolding Harry for using 
Unforgivables.

Quick_Silver










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 05:32:30 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:32:30 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm3ck2+25u0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm3j9e+m6ue@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143438

Quick_Silver wrote:
> Agreeing with Alla here the Vance murder is the one thing that makes
me doubt that Snape is completely reformed. 
> 
> Either it's a genuine slip up on Snape's part (i.e. an accident) at
which point the idea of a competent spy!Snape is dealt a serious blow
(which isn't a problem IMO...I've always thought that Snape was a
rather pathetic spy to begin with). 
> 
> It could be a sign of Snape's undying loyalty to Voldemort but I 
don't think the series is headed in that direction.
> 
> Or it could be a warning that Snape really doesn't have any true
morals and is a hypocrite. It'd be a bit rich if he's giving up Order
members to mention his cover while scolding Harry for using Unforgivables.
>
>
Carol responds:
Or Snape could be lying to Bellatrix about supplying information on
Emmeline Vance, which is what I think he's doing. Shortly before he
makes this statement, he makes sure that she is no longer in contact
with Voldemort and can't check the truth or falsehood of the
"information" he supplies. Bellatrix says defensively that LV "shares
everything" with her and calls her "his most loyal, his most faithful
[servant]," to which Sanpe replies, "Does he *still*, after the fiasco
at the Ministry?" Bellatrix replies, "That was not my fault!" (HBP Am.
ed. 29) but it's clear that she's no longer in LV's confidence. Since
Snape's whole purpose at this point is to end Bellatrix's doubts
regarding his loyalty, he not only tells her exactly what he's already
told Voldemort ("Do you think has not already asked me each and every
one of these questions? And do you really think that, had I not given
satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you?" 26), he
apparently feels safe in throwing in a bit of additional detail to
persuade her that he's providing useful information to the Dark Lord
(that he's provided information on Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black).
We know that Kreacher has provided information on Black, and it stands
to reason that Wormtail would also have done so in the year between
PoA and GoF; there's no reason why LV would need additional
information on Black from Snape. But we have no way of determining
whether he's telling the truth about Emmeline Vance or not--and
neither does Bellatrix.

Snape also asks Bellatrix tauntingly whether she believes that he has
"somehow hoodwinked" the Dark Lord, "the most accomplished Legilimens
the world has ever seen" (26). Bellatrix still has her doubts but
doesn't dare to express them because that would imply that Snape is a
greater Occlumens than LV is a Legilimens. But if we look at OoP, in
which Snape tells Harry that only a very skilled Occlumens can lie to
Voldemort without being detected (quote not handy, sorry) and Lupin's
description of Snape in the same book as "a superb Occlumens," I think
we should at least consider the possibility that that's exactly what
Snape is doing--lying to Voldemort and getting away with it, and lying
to Bellatrix as well. He is certainly *concealing* information,
including saving Harry's life in SS/PS and saving Dumbledore's between
OoP and HBP.

IMO, it isn't necessary to take every statement Snape makes in
"Spinner's End" at face value. For example, when he says that Wormtail
has lately taken to listening at doors (obviously a true statement) he
follows it with "I don't know what he means by it" (24-25), which is
almost certainly untrue. I also think his statement that he thought
Quirrell was acting on his own rather than seeking the Philosopher's
Stone for Voldemort is a lie (based on the "where your loyalties lie"
passage in Book 1).

Snape has to be lying to someone, either Dumbledore or Voldemort or
both (his lies being sometimes compounded of half truths). *I* think,
based on the evidence of his loyalty that we find at the end of GoF,
that he's lying to Voldemort. And though I can't prove it, I would
argue that it's at least as likely as the alternative (that he's lying
to Dumbledore).

We can safely assume, based on "Spinner's End," that we now know what
Snape told Voldemort to persuade LV that he has not "left [him]
forever." What we can't safely assume, Snape being Snape, is that what
he told Voldemort (and Bellatrix) is the truth.

A side note since I don't know where else I can squeeze this in:

We've discussed the possibility that before the end of HBP (and maybe
even then) Snape had never cast an Unforgiveable Curse. The chief
piece of evidence for this view is Bellatrix's accusation in
"Spinner's End" that he repeatedly "slithers out of action." There's
also the notable absence of a specific accusation against him in the
Karkaroff Pensieve scene in GoF: Karkaroff connects specific crimes
with specific Death Eaters but accuses Snape only of being a Death
Eater. And Crouch dismissed the charges against him, which I doubt he
would have done if Snape could be proven guilty of torture or murder. 

I noticed another small piece of evidence for this view in "Spinner's
End." Snape says that he preferred his comfortable job at Hogwarts to
"a stint in Azkaban" (27). Not a life sentence to Azkaban, which he
would have received had he cast any one of the Unforgiveable Curses,
but a stint--defined by my dictionary as a definite and limited amount
of time, usually brief--a year or two, possibly, but not a lifetime. 

Just a thought I wanted to toss into the arena.

Carol, whose pumpkin pies are ready to put in the refrigerator,
wishing all the Americans on the list a Happy Thanksgiving and a Happy
Thursday to everyone else











From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 24 06:44:57 2005
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:44:57 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm35sn+86ao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm3nh9+tai9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143439


> Alora wrote:
> > HBP (US edition)ch. 28, page 604:
> > 
> > "Kill me then," panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only 
> > rage and contempt.  "Kill me like you killed him, you coward-"
> > 
> > "DON'T-" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, 
> > inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling 
> > dog stuck in the burning house behind them- "CALL ME COWARD!"
> > 
> > Here, I think he's in terrible pain at having had to kill 
> > Dumbledore, 
<snip>
> 
> 
> ~Fauntine replied:
> Anyway, I didn't think about the description of Snape being in pain 
> as his pain of killing Dumbledore... that's really insightful! 
> 
> Cheers!
> It's good to be back
> 

Valky:
Welcome back Fauntine. Now although I fall generally into the camp who
was convinced by HBP that Snape is not evil, in the interests of
sufficiently messing up this neat analysis with inconspicuous detail
<g> technically Harry and Snape are not talking (read - screaming at
each other) about Dumbledore here at all. The subject of this exchange
is James. 

Paraphrase -
Snape - you would turn my own spells on me like your filthy father.
Harry - Go on then kill me like you killed *him*.

The source of Snape's contorting inhuman pain therefore is the death
of James Potter. Snape's involvement in James' death was, as we know,
his relaying of information to Voldemort. Basically a valid
translation here is that Harry is calling Snape a coward for his
service to Voldemort, for killing James.

With that as pretext Snapes pain seems to hinge on his involvement in
the death of Harry's family. The exact thing that Dumbledore insists
is the biggest regret of his life. 

Dumbledore is right, No?

Valky


>







From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Thu Nov 24 10:09:02 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:09:02 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm3j9e+m6ue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm43fu+39ks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143440

Carol wrote;
Snape also asks Bellatrix tauntingly whether she believes that he has
> "somehow hoodwinked" the Dark Lord, "the most accomplished Legilimens
> the world has ever seen" (26). Bellatrix still has her doubts but
> doesn't dare to express them because that would imply that Snape is a
> greater Occlumens than LV is a Legilimens. But if we look at OoP, in
> which Snape tells Harry that only a very skilled Occlumens can lie to
> Voldemort without being detected (quote not handy, sorry) and Lupin's
> description of Snape in the same book as "a superb Occlumens," I think
> we should at least consider the possibility that that's exactly what
> Snape is doing--lying to Voldemort and getting away with it, and lying
> to Bellatrix as well. 

I must admit that I am firmly in the DDM Snape corner. However, I have 
one huge problem with the argument that Snape can protect himself from 
Voldemort's legilimency.

Snape castigates Harry in OOTP, stating that 'fools who wear their 
hearts on their sleeves' will never master occlumency. However, Snape 
always has a powerful emotional reaction whenever he is reminded of 
James/Sirius. Just look at Snape's reaction to Sirius' escape/the 
Pensieve scene/Harry's coward taunt. At these particular moments I 
doubt whether Snape's attempts at occlumency would be successful.

Now, if we are to believe that Snape really is DDM, then he is going 
out of his way to ensure that Voldemort is destroyed no matter what the 
cost. Surely Voldemort has done something to Snape that has evoked an 
emotions even more powerful than those he has for Sirius/James/Harry. 
If it was simply a case of becoming disenfranchised with Voldemort's 
philosophy, surely he would have just walked away (or at least been 
more comparable with Slughorn). 

My final point therefore is, if Snape hates Voldemort more than 
James/Sirius/Harry, then how is he managing to keep his emotions in 
check and master occlumency around him.

Brothergib (who still thinks that the bulk of evidence still favours 
DDM Snape)

Happy thanksgiving to the US. 







From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Thu Nov 24 10:22:50 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:22:50 -0000
Subject: Lily's protection
Message-ID: <dm449q+2s62@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143441

Have the following questions ever been answered satisfactorily?

1. If Voldmeort has overcome Lily's protection by using Harry's blood, 
how can Privet Drive still offer Harry protection?

2. If the Dementors can attack Harry as soon as he steps outside of the 
Dursley's house, is this protection of any use?
Surely any of Voldemort's followers could have turned up and destroyed 
Harry whenever he went out/to school etcetc! A squib bodyguard does not 
seem enough extra protection.

3. Hagrid pulled Harry out of the rubble of Godric's Hollow. From their 
discussion at the beginning of PS/SS it appears that DD was not at 
Godric's hollow. Let's presume that DD would not have left Harry to sit 
in a pile of rubble for any length of time. Therefore, precisely how 
does DD know that Lily died to protect Harry?

Brothergib 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 10:26:28 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:28 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm3j9e+m6ue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm44gk+66jc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143442

> Carol:
> 
> I noticed another small piece of evidence for this view in "Spinner's
> End." Snape says that he preferred his comfortable job at Hogwarts to
> "a stint in Azkaban" (27). Not a life sentence to Azkaban, which he
> would have received had he cast any one of the Unforgiveable Curses,
> but a stint--defined by my dictionary as a definite and limited 
amount
> of time, usually brief--a year or two, possibly, but not a lifetime. 

a_svirn:
He could mean a) that even though he had performed Unforgivables the 
Ministry didn't have much in a way of evidence to incarcerate him 
indefinitely; b) that he was simply being sarcastic like with "I don't 
know what he means by it"; c) that from the true DE point of view any 
period in Azkaban could only be temporary, since the Dark Lord could 
be counted upon rising again; d) all of the above simultaneously. 

a_svirn






From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Thu Nov 24 10:34:03 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:34:03 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm43fu+39ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051124103403.25742.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143443


--- esmith222002 <c.john at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> My final point therefore is, if Snape hates
> Voldemort more than 
> James/Sirius/Harry, then how is he managing to keep
> his emotions in 
> check and master occlumency around him.

That's an excellent observation. However, I think
there is a crucial difference in his emotions towards
Voldemort compared to James&Sirius.

(I proceed under assumption of DDM!Snape, who hates
Voldmemort and works for his destruction).
His hatred towards Voldemort would be more manageable,
because it's an acknowledged emotion - it's shared
with his peer group.
But his hatred of James and Sirius was never
acknowledged by the people that matter to him.
Dumbledore hasn't accepted that Sirius had tried to
wrong Snape (at least not to the level that Snape
wants), and nobody accepts that James was anything
less than saint.
So these emotions are more difficult to control. Note,
that when Sirius is down, Snape has no problem keeping
his cool around him (in OoTP). It's only when Sirius
has got an upper hand (and Snape has the reasons to
suspect that Dumbledore has chosen Sirius over him
*again*) Snape loses it.

Irene


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com



From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Thu Nov 24 11:36:59 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:36:59 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <20051124103403.25742.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dm48kr+10i2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143444


> 
> (I proceed under assumption of DDM!Snape, who hates
> Voldmemort and works for his destruction).
> His hatred towards Voldemort would be more manageable,
> because it's an acknowledged emotion - it's shared
> with his peer group.
> But his hatred of James and Sirius was never
> acknowledged by the people that matter to him.
> Dumbledore hasn't accepted that Sirius had tried to
> wrong Snape (at least not to the level that Snape
> wants), and nobody accepts that James was anything
> less than saint.
> So these emotions are more difficult to control. Note,
> that when Sirius is down, Snape has no problem keeping
> his cool around him (in OoTP). It's only when Sirius
> has got an upper hand (and Snape has the reasons to
> suspect that Dumbledore has chosen Sirius over him
> *again*) Snape loses it.
> 
> Irene
> 

Well countered! Although, that might suggest that his ability to fool 
Voldemort will have been weakened by the death of DD. Snape is alone 
again with no peer group support.

The other factor may be fear! Snape's reaction at the end of GOF 
suggests that he greatly fears returning to Voldemort. Fear would 
definitely focus the mind, and would also prevent his anger from 
boiling over.  Whereas he only has feelings of contempt for 
James/Sirius.

Brothergib






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 11:49:27 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:49:27 -0000
Subject: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dm449q+2s62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm49c7+co7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143445

Brothergib wrote: 
"Have the following questions ever been answered satisfactorily?
1. If Voldmeort has overcome Lily's protection by using Harry's 
blood, how can Privet Drive still offer Harry protection?"

CH3ed:
Perhaps there are more than one protections? The protection on Harry 
himself (which LV overcame by being reborn out of Harry's blood), 
and the protection of the place where Lily's sister lives (Dursleys' 
house), which remains intact until Harry comes of age (or aunt 
Petunia is assassinated?).

Brothergib:
"2. If the Dementors can attack Harry as soon as he steps outside of 
the Dursley's house, is this protection of any use?
Surely any of Voldemort's followers could have turned up and 
destroyed Harry whenever he went out/to school etc etc! A squib 
bodyguard does not seem enough extra protection."


CH3ed:
Since LV returned DD had put OotP wizards to guard Harry at the 
Dursleys' (Dung was the wizard on duty when the dementors attacked. 
Yeah, Dung doesn't seem like a competent guard to me too. :o)). 
Figgy was just a look out, I think. Thinking of that I'm still 
wondering why the tent the Weasleys used during Quidditch World Cup 
resembles Figg's house interior? Down to the rotten cabbage smell.


Brothergib:
"3. Hagrid pulled Harry out of the rubble of Godric's Hollow. From 
their discussion at the beginning of PS/SS it appears that DD was 
not at Godric's hollow. Let's presume that DD would not have left 
Harry to sit in a pile of rubble for any length of time. Therefore, 
precisely how does DD know that Lily died to protect Harry?"

CH3ed:
I'm guessing that there was a portrait or two at the Potters' hiding 
place in GH that had a copy in DD's office.  

CH3ed wishing our American members a very delicious turkey and a 
Happy Thanksgiving.  :O)







From ornawn at 013.net  Thu Nov 24 19:33:46 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:33:46 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
Message-ID: <dm54iq+qfja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143446


>Alla:
>I am completely with Quick_silver here - during the battle in MOM
>for
>all we know Dumbledore may have sustained one of the biggest shock
>moments in his life, if he indeed loves Harry as deeply as he 
claims.

>For all we know, he felt completely helpless and powerless and he
>had
>no clue how to save Harry for all we know. Dumbledore does not tell
>Harry in his final speech in OOP that " I saved you", he says "your
>heart saved you".

>Is it such a big stretch to assume that such huge stress indeed
>slowed down his reactions? I think it is a reasonable assumption to
>make


Orna:
I liked this thought very much. It adds to a feature brought up in 
HBP, that of the power of emotional shock. We see Tonks loosing a 
lot of her power, of her magic abilities, and her Patronus, "just" 
because of an emotional shock. 
DD suggests to Harry, that Merope might have lost her magical 
skills, or at least the desire to be a witch (not to mention her 
will to live), because of the shock of discovering Riddle sr. left 
her.

I think it might foreshadow something which might aid to Voldemort's 
defeat. Perhaps something in the final encounter with Harry might 
shake/shock him in a way disabling him to use his powerful magic. 
Basically Voldemort is immune to emotional shocks ? having trained 
himself to be detached and devoid of human feelings. But it is after-
all unthinkable that a human will be portrayed in a complete human-
devoid way until his very death. The whole point of DD's private 
lessons to Harry showed how human Voldemort was ? in a way, and how 
he became less and less human. Perhaps, as the horcrux-note says ? 
he will for a moment become somehow mortal and therefore human 
enough to sustain some shock. 

Just a thought,

Orna








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Thu Nov 24 17:52:13 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:52:13 -0000
Subject: All of a Piece (was re: The Possibilities of Grey Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dlgp6u+p2v5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm4ukd+kgqt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143447


Carol wrote:
> Punish him? He's already being punished! What "karmic" justice or
> retribution for his "abuse" of the students does he deserve in
> addition to his present condition? A taunt or tongue-lashing from
> Harry? A Crucio from the pure-souled hero, who will no longer be
> pure-souled if he ever successfully casts one?
> 


Lupinlore wrote:
Hmmm.  I doubt that Harry will Crucio Snape, much as Snape has it 
coming.  I wouldn't be surprised if Voldemort or another DE performs 
that service, though.

Karmic justice, or poetic justice if you will, is justice that is 
brought about specifically by one's own actions.  Therfore, the only 
appropriate justice for Snape is one that is brought, in part, by 
his abuse of Harry and Neville.  Certainly it would involve a 
heartfelt and sincere apology from Snape to both of them, along with 
an admission that he was totally in the wrong and his actions were 
completely indefensible.  Also it would need to be made absolutely 
clear that his pain is, in part, a direct result of his mistreatment 
of Harry and Neville.

Oh, and certainly a great many taunts and tongue-lashings from Harry 
would be perfectly appropriate.  Although it would never happen, it 
would, for instance, be highly amusing for Snape to be forced to 
perform the same services for Harry that Wormtail is currently 
performing for Snape.


Lupinlore








From va32h at comcast.net  Thu Nov 24 18:59:17 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:59:17 -0000
Subject: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dm449q+2s62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm52i5+a36n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143448

Brotherjib wrote:

> 1. If Voldmeort has overcome Lily's protection by using Harry's 
blood, how can Privet Drive still offer Harry protection?

va32h:
There are two kinds of protection offered by Lily's blood. The first 
was the protection that would not allow Voldemort to physically 
touch Harry. This is why Quirrell could not touch Harry at the end 
of Philosopher's Stone. This is the protection Voldemort overcame at 
the end of GoF. 

The second protection is the "ancient magic" sealed by Dumbledore, 
which kept Harry safe at Privet Drive. Because Harry still resides 
where his mother's blood resides, Voldemort cannot harm Harry AT #4 
Privet Drive. Voldemort can certainly harm him at the Ministry of 
Magic, or in a Little Hangleton graveyard, but Privet Drive itself 
is safe. This protection was meant to keep Harry safe in the years 
before he came to Hogwarts - and during those times when Harry had 
no other magical folk around to protect him. 

This second protection is valid until Harry turns 17, regardless of 
who else is sharing Harry's blood. So on August 1, Voldemort could 
walk right into the Dursley's house and blast them all to 
smithereens, but on July 30, he still could not. Unfortunately, we 
are not told what would happen to Voldemort if he tried to attack 
Harry at Privet Drive, prior to Harry's 17th birthday. 

Brotherjib: 
> 2. If the Dementors can attack Harry as soon as he steps outside 
>of the Dursley's house, is this protection of any use?
> Surely any of Voldemort's followers could have turned up and 
>destroyed Harry whenever he went out/to school etcetc! A squib 
>bodyguard does not  seem enough extra protection.

va32h:

Voldemort's followers don't know where Harry is. For most of Harry's 
life, they don't know where Voldemort is. There would be no reason 
for a Death Eater to come looking for Harry until the period 
following the end of Harry's 4th year - after Voldemort has been 
resurrected. But Voldemort doesn't want Harry dead just yet. He 
wants to hear the prophecy, and eventually he realized he will need 
Harry to hear the prohecy. Furthermore, at the end of Half Blood 
Prince, we hear from Snape that the Death Eaters are under orders 
NOT to kill Harry - to "leave him for the Dark Lord". Presumably, 
having been bested by Harry on so many occasions, it's a matter of 
pride that Voldemort finish him off personally. 

Brotherjib:
> 3. Hagrid pulled Harry out of the rubble of Godric's Hollow. From 
their 
> discussion at the beginning of PS/SS it appears that DD was not at 
> Godric's hollow. Let's presume that DD would not have left Harry 
to sit 
> in a pile of rubble for any length of time. Therefore, precisely 
how 
> does DD know that Lily died to protect Harry?

va32h:
This is a bit of a puzzle. Well, Lily is alive, and Harry is dead - 
so that tells us something. But --- what if Skilled Legilimens 
Dumbledore was able to extract the memory of that night from Baby 
Harry? And if this memory is still stored somewhere... Oh that would 
be cool!

va32h, who now has a whole host of possibilities to consider












From ornawn at 013.net  Thu Nov 24 20:08:54 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:08:54 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
Message-ID: <dm56kn+kfkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143449



>Irene:
>That's an excellent observation. However, I think
>there is a crucial difference in his emotions towards
>Voldemort compared to James&Sirius.

>(I proceed under assumption of DDM!Snape, who hates
>Voldmemort and works for his destruction).
>His hatred towards Voldemort would be more manageable, 
>because it's an acknowledged emotion - it's shared
>with his peer group.
>But his hatred of James and Sirius was never
>acknowledged by the people that matter to him.
>Dumbledore hasn't accepted that Sirius had tried to
>wrong Snape (at least not to the level that Snape
>wants), and nobody accepts that James was anything
>less than saint.
>So these emotions are more difficult to control. Note, 
>that when Sirius is down, Snape has no problem keeping
>his cool around him (in OotP). It's only when Sirius
>has got an upper hand (and Snape has the reasons to
>suspect that Dumbledore has chosen Sirius over him
>*again*) Snape loses it.

Orna:
I agree with you. But I want to say that everybody accepts James 
wasn't a saint ? DD didn't make him prefect, Lupin says so, so it is 
acknowledged that he wasn't a saint, IMO. Still DD seems to like 
James, and Sirius, and Lupin more than Snape, and that might add to 
the point of pain. DD trusts him, appreciates his skills and uses 
him, but we don't see any real warmth towards him. Snape's tragedy 
and pain is IMO that he doesn't get the appreciation from the people 
he is acts for (a fate shared by many spies, and certainly double 
spies).

Even, when it is quite evident that he saved Harry's life (like in 
PS), we see Harry surprised, but never as much as thankful towards 
him. And I don't remember anyone in the order friendly towards him. 
Even DD tells Harry that his saving him was to counter James' saving 
Snape. I mean ? it does sound a little degrading. Lupin is the one, 
who acknowledgers his appreciation for him. I admit that Snape is 
never something like remotely friendly towards Harry, and is 
basically a very unlikable character. But still ? he saved his life, 
and we don't see in Harry any emotional impact of that fact. In 
OotP, it amounts to his neglecting the opportunity to save Sirius. 
And after that, he continuously blames and hates Snape ? in a way 
not to face his own guilt, having endangered Sirius in an 
unnecessary battle. 

I just remember that Draco, when faced with Snape's desire and 
commitment to protect him ? also turns him down. It seems that 
whenever Snape does protect and save somebody ? and sometimes really 
at personal risk ? it is just not appreciated ? not by the one 
saved, and not by his reference group.

I'm not saying Snape isn't a very complicated character to be 
thankful to. It should certainly raise a conflict in the person 
concerned. 

But anyway, what I was trying to say is that seeing Snape doesn't 
get appreciation for his known good deeds, it would make sense to 
infer, that emotionally it would be a weak spot, collapsing his 
occlumency abilities there. 

Orna, adding her "Happy thanksgiving to the US".








From xmilesx at gmx.de  Thu Nov 24 20:09:02 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:09:02 +0100
Subject: Snape isn't evil
References: <dm3nh9+tai9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014801c5f132$eb512670$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143450

M.Clifford wrote:
> With that as pretext Snapes pain seems to hinge on his involvement in
> the death of Harry's family. The exact thing that Dumbledore insists
> is the biggest regret of his life.
> Dumbledore is right, No?

And here we are at the point to spread my most beloved theory ;).
As we know, Snape was the one who told the first part of the prophecy to
Voldemort. Dumbledore told Harry, that Snape overheard the prophecy, but was
caught in the act by Aberfourth (?). But we know from Trelawny, that Snape
was thrown into the room after the entire prophecy. So, one possible
explanation is, that Snape couldn't listen to the second part of the
prophecy because he had do deal with Aberfourth.

My theory is different. It is not proven, but it is a solution for many open
questions and perfectly fits for all canon information we have:
- Snape heard the entire prophecy
- he was detected and thrown into the room to meet Dumbledore and Trelawny
- Snape then (or before) joined Dumbledore's side, maybe *because* of the
prophecy
- Dumbledore decided, that telling Voldemort only the first part of the
prophecy could be a plan to lure him out of his hide
- Snape did so. Doing this, is the secret why Dumbledore trusts in Snape
- the extrem protection put on the Potters' house could be a reaction to the
danger they were in, when Voldemort came to know about the prophecy

If this is true, Snape *is* in some extent responsible for the death of
James and Lily, but not because he was a coward. And Dumbledore had pulled
the strings - and failed dramatically. The death of the Potters would be his
fault - and his biggest regret. And he wants to make up for this fault by
doing everything for Harry Potter.

Miles, who waits to see the theory pulled to pieces ;)






From schumar1999 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 24 23:44:15 2005
From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:44:15 -0000
Subject: Shaken Dumbledore? /Snape speech to Bella again
In-Reply-To: <dm56kn+kfkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm5j8f+uimk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143451

Orna wrote:  Orna:
I agree with you. But I want to say that everybody accepts James
wasn't a saint ? DD didn't make him prefect, Lupin says so, so it is
acknowledged that he wasn't a saint, IMO. Still DD seems to like
James, and Sirius, and Lupin more than Snape, and that might add to
the point of pain. DD trusts him, appreciates his skills and uses
him, but we don't see any real warmth towards him. Snape's tragedy
and pain is IMO that he doesn't get the appreciation from the people
he is acts for (a fate shared by many spies, and certainly double
spies).

Marianne S: I think we have not seen whatever change in Character that James went through after his 5th year. Something must have happened after that, because we know he and Lily didn't start dating until their 7th year. I can't remember exactly where we know this from; I think Lupin might have said it once. Anyway, I find it very plausible that Dumbledore didn't particularly trust James until he had matured some, sometime after those O.W.L.s as seen in Snape's Worst Memory. 

I don't think Snape is the type to accept warmth from anyone, and yet I can also believe that he could feel pained by not receiving the same kinds of positive attention that James and Sirius got. I wonder how much of Snape's TRUE motivations JKR will ever disclose. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Thu Nov 24 23:59:34 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:59:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm5k56+nmoa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143452

Alla wrote:
>
> <snipped, straight to questions>
> 
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 
Chapter 
> 4,Horace Slughorn.
> 
> QUESTIONS.
> 
> 1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
> Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
> attacked tonight."
> Harry: "Why not, sir?"
> "You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
>  Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
>  "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
> stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 
> 
> Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?

Lucianam:
Yes, surely the first answer, "You are with me", is the set-up for 
the second one. I suppose it was writen like that to achieve 
literary impact and provoke an emotional response in the reader: 
Harry grows to be Dumbledore's protector in the cave scene.

But when I first read the first Q, the one in the chapter we're 
discussing, I had a different impression, I thought Dumbledore was 
referring to the ring. I thought he meant, 'You needn't fear the 
Dementors (they were talking about the fog and how it was due to the 
Dementors breeding), I will protect you agains them.' I assumed the 
ring was wearing possibly had power over the Dementors or was a 
Dementor repeller.

> 
> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," 
how 
> does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
> Budleigh Babberton?

Lucianam:
That's an excellent point and I wish JKR will explain it. But 
perhaps she'll leave it like that, Dumbledore being a resourceful 
man possibly has means of keeping an eye on Slughorn.  
> 
> 
> 7. If Horace has been "out of touch with everybody for a year", 
how 
> does he know about Dumbledore's injury? Is there any significance 
> that he describes the reason for the injury basically the same way 
> Snape describes it to Bella in "Spinner's end"?
<snipped>

Lucianam:
I think he just recognized DD's blackened arm as a magical injury. 
One an agile wizard wouldn't suffer, so he assumed DD's reactions 
were slower than they used to be.
> 
> 8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned 
about 
> Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?

Lucianam:
Maybe it's just a sequel now, so it means it healed not very badly. 
I suppose slughorn is familiar with magical injuries, so he 
recognized DD's as a treated one.
 
> 
> 9. What was your very first impression of Horace Slughorn?  I 
mean, 
> particularly, if it's possible for you to recall before you read 
> anything about him on the HPFGU. 

Lucianam:
I liked him, but I didn't trust him at all. He's a new character, 
and even if he's not the DADA teacher he's still a new teacher! 
We've learned to be suspicious of those...
He tells us a lot of things, but we see little proof. For example, 
he says he set up the whole scenario at the village house. Well, so 
he says! What if the house had really been attacked, and he made a 
deal with the attackers? All he had to do was to transform into that 
armchair and play his part, tell his story about being in the 
bathroom and preparing the charade...
I like the theory (I'm so sorry, I forgot whose theory this 
originally is; I can come up with the quote below but I'm not sure 
who started it) of the first 4 chapters happening in the same night.

> Ceridwen said:
> I know you didn't ask me, but I think all four chapters are on the 
> same
> night (and going into the stay at the Weasleys as well). I think 
> what JKR is doing, is going from the least-known, the Other 
> Minister, Fudge, and Scrimgeour, to people we know (Snape) or have 
> met (the Black sisters), then down to our POV character, Harry. 
> Like a spiral starting at the outer edges and working its way in. 
> Just my opinion.

Lucianam continues:
What if the Ministry of Magic, not the Death Eaters, raided 
Slughorn's house? Scrimgeour arrived late at the meeting with the 
Muggle Prime Minister because he was 'busy'. Suppose he was busy 
talking Slughorn into playing the spy for the Ministry?

About Dumbledore going to the bathroom, maybe he didn't only mean to 
leave Harry and Slughorn alone, or even had a full bladder. Maybe he 
wanted to check if the bathroom had really been used recently? 

Something else I think we're taking for granted about Slughorn is 
his relationship with Lily.

Quote from HBP, Chapter 4:
'You look very like your father.'
'Yeah, I've been told,' said Harry.
'Except for your eyes. You've got -'
'My mother's eyes, yeah.' harry had heard it so often he found it a 
bit wearing.'
'Humph. Yes, well. You shouldn't have favourites, as a teacher ...'
<Slughorn continues talking about Lily and praising her>

Now, Harry assumed Slughorn was going to say '- your mother's eyes.' 
What if he wasn't? What if he was going to say ... '- green eyes.'? 

James had hazel eyes. If Slughorn indeed knew James, but didn't know 
Lily enough to remember her eye color, he would have said 'Except 
for your eyes. You've got green eyes.' But Slughorn takes Harry's 
lead and goes on saying good things about Harry's mother, which 
serves to at least three endings: it pleases Harry, makes him 
believe Slughorn in fact knew his mother well even if he never did, 
and show Slughorn just how very easy to fool Harry is.

These are just thoughts, I'm not betting heavily on these theories. 
But I'm not taking things for granted very easily, I feel we're 
stepping on very shaky grounds in HBP. 

> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents 
even 
> in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here 
Harry 
> meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother 
> very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about 
> Lily. What do you think about it?
> 
Lucianam:

Well, that was weird. I could say that supports what I just said 
above about Harry being gullible and easy to fool, but I think the 
easiest explanation is that JKR forgot to write about it or thought 
it unimportant.

Excellent questions! I was really looking forward to discussing this 
chapter, I think Slughorn is so interesting. I would just like to 
add that one of the biggest issues in this chapter, in my opinion, 
is what exactly was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? Why exactly 
did DD bring him there? I have an overall impression that DD thought 
Slughorn would see a valuable source of monetary gain in famous 
Harry Potter, but I think that's not it. DD did say to Harry 'You 
showed Horace exactly how much he stands to gain by returning to 
Hogwarts.' I'd like to know what that 'exactly' means!!

Maybe there's an innocent enough explanation. How about 30 or 40% of 
the profit made by Mr. Eldred Worple, when he publishes the 
autobiography of The Boy who Lived?

Lucianam








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 01:24:39 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:24:39 -0000
Subject: What was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4,
In-Reply-To: <dm5k56+nmoa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm5p4n+odr5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143453

> Lucianam:
<SNIP>
> Excellent questions! I was really looking forward to discussing 
this 
> chapter, I think Slughorn is so interesting. 

Alla:

Thanks. I also find Slughorn to be very interesting new character, 
in fact probably the most interesting new character introduced in 
books 5 and 6.


Lucianam:
I would just like to 
> add that one of the biggest issues in this chapter, in my opinion, 
> is what exactly was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? Why exactly 
> did DD bring him there? I have an overall impression that DD 
thought 
> Slughorn would see a valuable source of monetary gain in famous 
> Harry Potter, but I think that's not it. DD did say to Harry 'You 
> showed Horace exactly how much he stands to gain by returning to 
> Hogwarts.' I'd like to know what that 'exactly' means!!


Alla:

Oooo, interesting observation. I used to think that what Slughorn 
would gain would be obtaining another 'jewel in his collection" 
(paraphrase) - namely adding Harry Potter to his club, BUT on the 
other hand that is exactly what Dumbledore warns him against when 
they leave the house - not to get collected. Since I hate 
Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, I prefer not to think that Dumbledore 
simply used Harry as a bait, while he does not think highly of 
Slughorn " collecting people's habbit". I don't know. It would be 
one think to introduce Harry to Slughorn if Albus knows that being a 
member in Slug club would be beneficial for Harry, it is another 
thing if Headmaster thinks exactly the opposite.

As an aside, I did say that when Dumbledore puts it this way " 
collecting people habit" it gives me creeps and on my first reading 
it stopped me from completely liking Horace character ( not as 
creature of JKR's writing, but as "person") more than all those 
questions about Dark Mark and strange knowledge about DD's injury.

BUT if Dumbledore would not have said that, I am not quite sure why 
Slug club is creepy to me, I still cannot figure it out.

Going back to your question, now I start doubting myself - is it 
really enough gain for Slughorn to come back to Hogwarts only 
because of the possibility that Harry would join his club? It is not 
even a guarantee.

I think I am with you, I also want to know what "exactly" means.



Lucianam: 
> Maybe there's an innocent enough explanation. How about 30 or 40% 
of 
> the profit made by Mr. Eldred Worple, when he publishes the 
> autobiography of The Boy who Lived?


Alla:

LOL! Maybe, but there are too many question marks for me right now, 
so I think I will continue my comfortable fence sitting. :-)

JMO,

Alla






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Thu Nov 24 23:44:51 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:44:51 +0100
Subject: He hates Hagrid?
References: <dm06t8+s6qb@eGroups.com> <43849151.5010208@telus.net> <014f01c5f09c$453b8460$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> <43852BF2.4000203@telus.net>
Message-ID: <018b01c5f151$104acdf0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143454

Kathryn Jones:
>     That is what I find so interesting about Hagrid. Dumbledore
> trusted
> Hagrid to go get Baby Harry. Hagrid might even have had the care of
> Harry for those "missing hours". Dumbledore trusted Hagrid to pick up
> the stone, which he apparently knew Voldemort would be trying to
> steal.

Miles:
Hagrid is a good bodyguard, either resistant to physical and magical
attacks. Therefore Hagrid is a valuable member of the order. And the
stone... he blabbed what he did...

Kathryn Jones:
> In HBP, Hagrid makes it quite clear that he knew about Snape spying
> for
> Dumbledore, which presumably should have been kept quiet.

Miles:
Not really. Snape was a known double agent - both sides know, the question
is his real loyalty. No secret to keep by Hagrid.

Kathryn Jones:
>     Hagrid went to school with Voldemort and yet Harry has never asked
> him about what he remembers of him.

Miles:
Ahm, yes, and... ? Harry did not ask, so we do not know what Hagrid could
tell. I agree, he will have his own point of view concerning Tom Riddle.
Harry is a closed boy, there are many people he doesn't talk to, but does
that indicate, that all those people  not interviewed keep their mouths
shut?

Kathryn Jones:
> Hagrid also knew James, Sirius,
> Peter, Remus and Snape as children. Harry has never thought to ask
> about
> what he knows. Hagrid would have known all about the prank.

Miles:
See above. And - we do not know about Hagrid knowing the marauders closer
than other student since Hagrid was expelled, don't we?

Kathryn Jones:
>     Hagrid does not lie well, as we saw, when he told Harry that Snape
> did not hate him. That lie made it clear that Hagrid knew all about
> Snape's feelings for Harry.

Miles:
Did he really lie? Or could he just not imagine that Snape would hate Harry
because he had good reason to hate James? Did he really know about Sirius
and James bullying Snape? No, I do not see a lying Hagrid, I see a
not-knowing Hagrid.
Hagrid *is* somehow simple-minded, not really stupid, but.... slow. And he
is not naive, but very warm-hearted and compassionate - maybe this is, what
binds him to Dumbledore and vice-versa - they both think the best of
everyone. And Hagrid of any animal as well.

Miles, who really likes Hagrid ;)






From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 01:55:58 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:55:58 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dlvhqr+eh9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm5qve+50k6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143455


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginny343" <ginny343 at y...> wrote:
>
> I had a thought this morning and although I have not thought it 
> completely through, I decided to post it.
> 
> We know from PoA that the DEs knew that Peter was a spy.  
> 
> "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters . . . Sounds like 
> they think the double-crosser double-crossed them . . . " (Am. ver. p. 
> 368)
snip 
> That given, I am a little confused about why Sirius was believed to be 
> a spy. 

Whiz:  Did the DEs think that Sirius was the spy?  Or was it only the Order?  I think that somewhere, the point was made that the DEs didn't all know who all the other DEs were.  

Ginny343:
> Seems to me that Snape must have known that Sirius was 
> innocent.  Or at the very least, Snape knew Peter had been the 
> betrayer, not Sirius.  

Whiz:  There's no doubt in my mind.  My theory is that Snape used Pettigrew to get James killed and frame Sirius.    Snape is on a campaign to eliminate the marauders, and by the end of Voldemort's first rampage, he was doing pretty well.  James was dead, Sirius was in Azkaban and Remus was an outcast.  Pettigrew was too frightened to show his face, so Snape had the run of Hogwarts under Dumbledore's protection.  Such a deal.

Ginny343:
> Although I am really hoping to see a turn for the good in Snape in the 
> 7th book, I am a little disappointed to think that Snape knew about 
> Peter, and yet the teachers in the school believed Peter to be 
> innocent. Did Snape tell DD otherwise and DD kept this information to  himself? Or did Snape not share this information because he wanted 
> Sirius to be killed/dementor-kissed?  

Whiz: Exactly.  If you read GoF carefully, Snape knew that Fake Moody was Barty Crouch Jr and he didn't tell Dumbledore about that either.  Snape ran interference for Crouch jr to murder his father, making him an accomplice to the murder, and by his silence, helped Crouch jr. turn Harry over to the DL.  I see no hope of Snape's redemption anywhere.

Ginny343:
> If Snape withheld this  information, surely DD figured out Snape 
 > knew about Peter . . . And even if Snape told DD and DD kept the info
 > to himself . . . after all of what happened in PoA, Snape should have
 > told the minister that Black was not the one who got James and Lily
 > killed.  Why didn't he?
> 
> Any ideas?   

Whiz: Ohyes!  Lots of ideas.  Snape is amazing!  But in a nutshell, I think Snape confunded Trelawney to produce both of her "prophesies" that his main motive is to destroy the marauders as well as both Dumbledore and Voldemort and return the control of the magical world to purebloods, as Slytherin desired.  

The reason we can't figure out which side Snape is on is because he's on neither.  He's still on Slytherin's old agenda, and would have been seduced by the DL when he was promoting that same political agenda.  But Voldemort doublecrossed the purebloods when he began to take power for himself instead, and there has been an underground of purebloods including Snape, Malfoy and Fudge and who knows who else, who are working to that specific end.  As a result, they count both Dumbledore and Voldemort their enemies.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 02:01:21 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:01:21 -0000
Subject: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dm449q+2s62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm5r9h+gess@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143456

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" <c.john at i...> wrote:
>
> Have the following questions ever been answered satisfactorily?
> 
> 1. If Voldmeort has overcome Lily's protection by using Harry's
> blood, how can Privet Drive still offer Harry protection?
> 

Member-Va32h has already address this issue; I will expand on it slightly.

First and foremost, there are two 'blood' related protections
surrounding Harry. 

The Blood of is Mother's sacrifice protects Harry all the time.
FURTHER, and very importantly, Voldemort has only overcome one aspect
of the Scarificial protection. After, Dumbledore finds out what
happened at the graveyard, he mentions Harry's mother's protection and
indicates that Harry still has that protection. From that, I can only
conclude as I have said above, that Voldemort has not overcome the
full protection of Lily's sacrifice, merely one aspect of it. 

Later, Dumbledore added his own protections to Harry, the protect him
while he lives in the place where his mother's blood dwells. In
otherwords, as long as Harry calls the Dursley's his home, he retains
Dumbledore's Blood protection.



> Brothergib:
> 2. If the Dementors can attack Harry as soon as he steps outside
> of the Dursley's house, is this protection of any use?
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

The exact expanse of that protection is very much debatable. Whether
it covers strictly the house, or whether it extends to all of the
Durlsey's real estate, or whether it simply fade as Harry move farther
from the house is not completely clear. So, you are right, Harry could
be attack when he was away from the house. 

But what would the logic be behind such an attack? When Harry was a
baby, I seriously doubt he left the house that often. As he grew to a
toddler, he probably rarely left the yard. Now several years have past
and the DE's are more convinced than ever that Voldemort is really
gone. They are not going to risk everything for a Dark Lord who no
longer exists and therefore can't protect them. So, they creep back
into their mundane lives and put on a good face.

So, Voldemort has only overcome one aspect of Lily's protection on
Harry, and then by the time Harry is more vulnerable near Privet
Drive, the DE's are back to their normal lives and have lost interest;
they have nothing to gain. 

> Brothergib:
> 3. Hagrid pulled Harry out of the rubble of Godric's Hollow. ...
> Let's presume that DD would not have left Harry to sit in a pile
> of rubble for any length of time. Therefore, precisely how does 
> DD know that Lily died to protect Harry?
> 
> Brothergib
>

bboyminn:

This last issue is much more difficult to resolve. There are actually
several mysteries surrounding the recover of Harry from Godric's
Hollow. Were Dumbledore, Sirius, and Hagrid in on the secret; that is,
had it previously been revealed to them? If not, then how could they
possibly find the Potter's house? If so, then why didn't they know
Peter was the Secret Keeper? 

We can assume these are mistakes and by doing so make ourselves
miserable, or we can assume that ther2 is a logcial backstory to them
that simply hasn't been reveal and thereby live in ignorant bliss. I
choose BLISS.

As to how Dumbledore knew the exact nature of events, the most logical
solution is to suppose that there was a portrait there who could carry
the news. That combined with common logic and reasonable forensics,
plus a deep knowledge of magic could have simply lead Dumbledore to
certain conclusions.

I know I've not been much help on this last issue...sorry.

Steve/bboyminn






From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 02:19:32 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:19:32 -0000
Subject: What was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4,
In-Reply-To: <dm5p4n+odr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm5sbk+g7ok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143457

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
snip
> Lucianam:
> I would just like to 
> > add that one of the biggest issues in this chapter, in my opinion, 
> > is what exactly was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? Why exactly 
> > did DD bring him there? 

Whiz:
I think Dumbledore brought Harry because he has his mother's eyes, and
as we learn later, Slughorn had a soft spot for Lily.

"On the other hand.."  Dumbledore knew that Slughorn knew about the
horcruxes.  Did Harry's presence remind Horace that he would be safer
at Hogwarts that out on his own?







From xmilesx at gmx.de  Fri Nov 25 02:08:47 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:08:47 +0100
Subject: What was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4,
References: <dm5p4n+odr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01bf01c5f165$2c662610$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143458

Alla wrote:
> Thanks. I also find Slughorn to be very interesting new character,
> in fact probably the most interesting new character introduced in
> books 5 and 6.

Miles:
I do as well, and will make a prophecy that will not be interrupted by any
barkeeper ;) at the end of this mail.

Alla continued:
> Going back to your question, now I start doubting myself - is it
> really enough gain for Slughorn to come back to Hogwarts only
> because of the possibility that Harry would join his club? It is not
> even a guarantee.

Miles wrote:
I think Dumbledore's idea was somewhat more complex, and he was right (as we
know).
So, the basic is DD knowing about Slughorn's Slug Club, collecting people
for it, or to put it in modern terms, he knows that Slughorn has been
"networking" for decades. So, Harry for sure is someone Slughorn would love
to collect, that is beyound all doubt. But that is not the trick. Slughorn
begins his "work" on Harry, charming, interrogating, narrating... and
realizing, that there is no existing network to which he could add Harry.
With bringing Slughorn in contact to Harry, DD shows him what he lost, what
he really, really misses. He puts the finger into Slughorns wound - and it
works fine.

So, now my prophecy - maybe it overstretches this topic a bit, but I find
the idea interesting enough to discuss it a bit.

I see good chances that Horace Slughorn will be the next Headmaster of
Hogwarts.
There are some pros and cons for this, and I'm absolutely aware of the
speculative charakter of this. Some arguments:
- pro: Rowling would not introduce a new character so extensively, if she
would not intend to use it as a main character in the last book. Headmaster
would be very important even if Harry will not return to Hogwarts (which I
doubt)
- pro: the new Headmaster  is likely to be important for the last book
- pro: McGonnagall is far from being a favourite of the Ministry, but the
Ministry will decide ore decisively influence the allocation of this
important job. I do not see any other teacher apart from her and Slughorn to
be qualified for the job
- pro: Slughorn is absolutely qualified for the job. He has been a teacher
for decades, he used to be Head of House for a long time - and he is
Slytherin. I'm quite sure, that the Ministry is full of Slytherins, and full
of members of Slughorn's network
- con: Slughorn likes to be in the background, not in the limelight.
- con: Slughorn is too old and will retire after DD is dead
- con: any ideas?

Miles, who should have been more cautious in pointing at others to be
speculative






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Fri Nov 25 02:22:06 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:22:06 +0100
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
References: <dm5qve+50k6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01d601c5f167$0813fba0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143459

whizbang wrote:
>Exactly.  If you read GoF carefully, Snape knew that Fake Moody
> was Barty Crouch Jr and he didn't tell Dumbledore about that either.

Miles: 
Would you find me some evidence in canon for this? I recently read
GoF, and I never had the idea that Snape knew about the real identity of
Fake!Moody.

whiz:
> Snape is amazing!  But in a nutshell, I
> think Snape confunded Trelawney to produce both of her "prophesies"
> that his main motive is to destroy the marauders as well as both
> Dumbledore and Voldemort and return the control of the magical world
> to purebloods, as Slytherin desired.

Miles: 
For both theories (concerning Trelawny and Snape's desire to destroy
the marauders) I would like to see hints in canon?
Ok, Snape really dislikes the marauders, but in very different ways. He
hates Sirius, he feels guilty for James' death (or thinks he owes James' son
his life), he can deal with Lupin and he actually lives with Wormtail. But
trying to destroy these so different persons as a group of teenagers that do
not exist any more?
And Trelawny? I see nothing that supports this idea.

But your last annotation is simply wrong. Snape is a Slytherin, but he is
*not* a pureblood (as we know) - why should he act for purebloods ruling the
wizarding world?

Miles






From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 02:41:55 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:41:55 -0000
Subject: What was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4,
In-Reply-To: <01bf01c5f165$2c662610$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dm5tlj+2b4c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143460

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <xmilesx at g...> wrote:
snip
> So, now my prophecy - maybe it overstretches this topic a bit, but I
 > find the idea interesting enough to discuss it a bit.
 
 > - pro: the new Headmaster  is likely to be important for the last 
 > book - 
 > pro: McGonnagall is far from being a favourite of the Ministry,
 > but the Ministry will decide ore decisively influence the allocation
 > of this important job. I do not see any other teacher apart from her
 > and Slughorn to be qualified for the job - pro: Slughorn is 
 > absolutely qualified for the job. He has been a teacher for decades,
 > he used to be Head of House for a long time - and he is Slytherin. 
 > I'm quite sure, that the Ministry is full of Slytherins, and full
 > of members of Slughorn's network
 
 > - con: Slughorn likes to be in the background, not in the limelight.
 > - con: Slughorn is too old and will retire after DD is dead
 > - con: any ideas?
 > 
 > Miles, who should have been more cautious in pointing at others to 
 > be speculative

Whiz:
Good points, and Slughorn has enough well placed friends to get the
job if he wants it.  But I doubt that he does.  If Hogwarts opens, I
believe he will continue as head of Slytherin house though.

The interesting thing about Slughorn is that after a lot of
speculation about the "good" slytherin, which I either resisted or
thought might be Tonks, Slughorn seems to fit the description.

I think Slughorn may be the key to info about Lily though.  He
definitely had a soft spot for her.  I'm also very interested in the
five potions mentioned in the first potions class and how they fit
into the overall plot.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 03:07:08 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:07:08 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <01d601c5f167$0813fba0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dm5v4s+81qv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143461

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <xmilesx at g...> wrote:

> Miles: 
> Would you find me some evidence in canon for this? I recently read
> GoF, and I never had the idea that Snape knew about the real 
> identity of Fake!Moody.

Whiz:  I hope this is allowed.
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1770807&postcount=412
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1772150&postcount=415
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1828168&postcount=458

These posts are all pre HBP and at the time, I thought Snape wanted to
get into Harry's head to discover how to kill the DL.  Post HBP, my
thought is that he is that, as Dumbledore told Harry, he would kill
for the connection to the DL's thoughts that Harry has.

> whiz:
> > Snape is amazing!  But in a nutshell, I think Snape confunded 
> > Trelawney to produce both of her "prophesies"
> > that his main motive is to destroy the marauders as well as both
> > Dumbledore and Voldemort and return the control of the magical 
> > world to purebloods, as Slytherin desired.
> 
> Miles: 
> For both theories (concerning Trelawny and Snape's desire to destroy
> the marauders) I would like to see hints in canon?
> Ok, Snape really dislikes the marauders, but in very different ways.
> He hates Sirius, he feels guilty for James' death (or thinks he owes
> James' son his life), he can deal with Lupin and he actually lives 
> with Wormtail. But trying to destroy these so different persons as a
> group of teenagers that do not exist any more?
> And Trelawny? I see nothing that supports this idea.
> 
> But your last annotation is simply wrong. Snape is a Slytherin, but 
> he is *not* a pureblood (as we know) - why should he act for 
> purebloods ruling the wizarding world?
> 
> Miles

To be rid of muggleborns and bloodtraitors.  This is all political,
it's all about power.

Hermione points out that if all the DEs were purebloods, there
wouldn't be very many of them.  Remember, purebloods don't hate
halfbloods near as much as they do muggleborns and half breeds.  While
they would dominate half bloods, they will tolerate them.  We know
little of Snape's ancestry.  His mother may have come from an
influencial family.  He certainly was friendly enough with purebloods.

I'll take it a step further.  I believe that Snape's animagus is an
insect, a buzzing insect to be precise.  And I'm toying with the idea
that he's Draco's godfather, though I'm fuzzy on that one.

Canon everywhere.  If you're really interested, I'll start rounding it
all up.






From schumar1999 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 03:41:36 2005
From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:41:36 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dm5qve+50k6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm615g+f3ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143462

Whiz : and there has been an underground of purebloods including Snape, Malfoy and
Fudge and who knows who else, who are working to that specific end.

Marianne S. - Big problem with this, since we know that Snape was not pure blood. Or maybe that's not what you meant to write? Anyway, I think Snape is in fact no fan of Voldemort , but I disagree with a lot of the other statements made.  I don't see Snape as an accomplice to Barty Crouch's murder, for instance. In fact, I believe the fact he showed up in Fake! Moody's foe glass is something that you don't have to read too carefully in order to know that Snape would not be deliberately helping Barty Jr. with anything. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Nov 25 03:42:02 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:42:02 -0000
Subject: FILK: Only An Evil Woman
Message-ID: <dm616a+e03n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143463

Only An Evil Woman 

To the tune of Only An Older Woman from Peter Allen's musical The Boy 
>From Oz 

Lyrics here: (sorry, no MIDI!)

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/theboyfromoz/onlyanolderwoman.htm

Dedicated to Constance Vigilance 

THE SCENE: The Malfoy Estate. BELLATRIX begins Occlumency lessons 
with her nephew DRACO. 

BELLATRIX:
Only an evil woman can aid you
One who can stop them reading your mind
I'm sure that I
Won't have to persuade you
Occlumency ? you'll leave `em behind
'Cause with an evil woman
You will learn all about crime

(spoken:) You have the markings of an Eater, kid. I like that.

DRACO: (spoken)
But how can I stay mean?

BELLATRIX: (spoken)
Hang around. You'll learn. You really want to serve the Dark Lord?

DRACO: (spoken)
It's all I've ever wanted.

BELLATRIX: (spoken)
Then hold that thought
.

DRACO:
I'm holding-
I need an evil woman intensely
Like a dementor


BELLATRIX:

.All dressed in pink

DRACO:
I need your evil to Occlumens me

BELLATRIX:
You can keep hidden


DRACO:

.Things that I think.

BELLATRIX:
I'm gonna teach you, Draco

DRACO: 
Magic sublime and obscure.
And whadda ya know, I've found this hard steel woman

BOTH
You'll/I'll have thoughts you'll/I'll know how to block
When Snape comes around to snoop.

DRACO: 
On my brain he'll learn there's a lock

BELLATRIX:
He will be outside
.

DRACO: 

..Of the loop

BOTH:
Clear from our minds unworthy emotions
Stay calm and cool in total control

BELLATRIX:
What you will think they won't have a notion

DRACO:
I'm gonna rock

BELLATRIX:
On DE Patrol

DRACO:
Thanks to this evil woman
I'll Dumbledore send to his doom

BELLATRIX:
You will be the Dark Lord's heir apparent

DRACO:
Quietly, do not tell my female parent 

BOTH:
`Cause our Cissy can become a much more evil woman
 
BELLATRIX:
Than me!

    -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm








From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 03:46:15 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:46:15 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dm615g+f3ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm61e7+8d4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143464

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marianne S." <schumar1999 at y...>
wrote:
 
> Marianne S. - In fact, I believe the fact he showed up in Fake!  
> Moody's foe glass is something that you don't have to read too
> carefully in order to know that Snape would not be deliberately 
> helping Barty Jr. with anything. 

Whiz:  Remember, Crouch Jr hated a DE who got away.  He may not have
realized that Snape wasn't on his side, but the glass did.  






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 05:23:20 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:23:20 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm3nh9+tai9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm6748+lh5j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143465



> Valky:
> Welcome back Fauntine. Now although I fall generally into the camp who
> was convinced by HBP that Snape is not evil, in the interests of
> sufficiently messing up this neat analysis with inconspicuous detail
> <g> technically Harry and Snape are not talking (read - screaming at
> each other) about Dumbledore here at all. The subject of this exchange
> is James. 
> 
> Paraphrase -
> Snape - you would turn my own spells on me like your filthy father.
> Harry - Go on then kill me like you killed *him*.
> 
> The source of Snape's contorting inhuman pain therefore is the death
> of James Potter. Snape's involvement in James' death was, as we know,
> his relaying of information to Voldemort. Basically a valid
> translation here is that Harry is calling Snape a coward for his
> service to Voldemort, for killing James.
> 
> With that as pretext Snapes pain seems to hinge on his involvement in
> the death of Harry's family. The exact thing that Dumbledore insists
> is the biggest regret of his life. 
> 
> Dumbledore is right, No?
> 
> Valky

Enough action passes between the two snippets to make it plausible that the *him* does 
not refer to James. And there are other reasons to suppose this. Snape did not kill James. 
If he were going to kill Harry  'like he killed James' he would run away to Voldemort, and 
talk Voldemort into doing the job. On the other hand, Harry as he speaks the 'kill me' line 
is wandless, just as Dumbledore was when Snape killed him.  So he would indeed be 
killing Harry just like he killed Dumbledore.

Just my opinion...







From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Nov 25 06:04:24 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:04:24 EST
Subject: Godric's Hollow (was Re: Lily's protection)
Message-ID: <23d.24a6087.30b80368@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143466

 
Brothergib wrote:

3. Hagrid pulled Harry out of the rubble of  Godric's Hollow. From their 
discussion at the beginning of PS/SS it appears  that DD was not at 
Godric's hollow. Let's presume that DD would not have  left Harry to sit 
in a pile of rubble for any length of time. Therefore,  precisely how 
does DD know that Lily died to protect  Harry.

 


Julie:       
Snape told him. Because Snape was at Godric's Hollow when or  just
after Voldemort killed James and Lily. I don't know if Snape came  with
Voldemort, not knowing where they were going and why until it was 
too late...or maybe he followed Voldemort as far as he could, and 
when the Potters died and Voldemort was vaporized the Secret  was
lifted, allowing Snape to see/access the house. Then he notified 
Dumbledore via patronus or some other method, and Dumbledore
sent Hagrid to retrieve young Harry. 
 
There is no direct evidence for this, but we've had clues from JKR
that someone else was at Godric's Hollow, and Snape has been
involved up to his batty ears in ways we're still learning. So he  seems
a likely contender for the GH mystery guest. 
 
I like this theory, because I get the feeling there is still some 
connection between Snape and Harry yet to be revealed. And 
perhaps some reason why Hagrid has always been so adamant
about defending Snape, while Snape has never made a snarky
comment about Hagrid, despite Hagrid's general incompetence as
a teacher. A shared goal at Godric's Hollow might explain it...
 
Or I could be totally off base ;-)
 
Julie 
 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Fri Nov 25 06:17:01 2005
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:17:01 -0000
Subject: The 4th of Alla's lovely questions
Message-ID: <dm6a8t+63ie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143467

<Gulp!> Here goes ...

4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," how
does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
Budleigh Babberton?

Perhaps this is too simple, but ... owls can find people, including
ones in unknown places; unknown to the people who send the owls, that
is. I don't really see Fawkes with a postman's hat, but there are
plenty of school owls available, and I can imagine an elderly,
fun-loving wizard hopping on his broom and tailing a messenger bird
... which could then be intercepted and told not to deliver its empty
envelope after all. And, Q.E.D., the secret address is a secret no more.

Deborah, liking the idea of DD's last pleasure trip






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Fri Nov 25 09:03:26 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:03:26 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow (was Re: Lily's protection)
In-Reply-To: <23d.24a6087.30b80368@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dm6k0u+fvkf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143468


> Julie:       
> Snape told him. Because Snape was at Godric's Hollow when or  just
> after Voldemort killed James and Lily. 

Bearing in mind I've always suspected that Snape was at GH, I'm really 
not sure why I didn't think of this before! Thank you for reminding me, 
and providing the likely answer.

A follow up question! Did Voldemort split his soul before the attack on 
Harry? If so, is it possible that Snape did something with this piece 
of soul? 
Here's a slightly way out theory - but a theory with some very 
interesting potential endpoints!

Has anyone ever suggested the possibility that SNAPE is a Horcrux (i.e. 
he intentionally internalised Voldemort's soul piece)?

Brothergib






From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 25 09:17:14 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:17:14 -0000
Subject: What was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4,
Message-ID: <dm6kqq+fgcj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143469

>Miles:

>-	pro: Slughorn is absolutely qualified for the job. He has 
>been a teacher
>for decades, he used to be Head of House for a long time - and he is
>Slytherin. I'm quite sure, that the Ministry is full of Slytherins, 
>and full
>of members of Slughorn's network
>- con: Slughorn likes to be in the background, not in the limelight.
>- con: Slughorn is too old and will retire after DD is dead
>- con: any ideas?

>Miles, who should have been more cautious in pointing at others to 
be


Orna:
I like this prophecy very much. For all the pros, you have said, and 
I would like to add another ? Slytherin is the "evil" house in the 
books so far. And according to the sorting hat, all houses must 
unite. So Slughorn is a good candidate for being the one helping 
Slytherin to be ambitious, but not altogether evil. His being 
headmaster would allow Slytherin to quench his thirst of power, 
while promoting unity.
And Slughorn likes to be in the background, but that's his 
opportunity to "grow up". But it means, he has to admit himself 
being now on the order's side, which I still fear, he may be afraid 
of doing. But perhaps, Snape's betrayal has shocked him enough? 
Altogether, I like your theory ? but it means Slughorn has to 
overcome many characteristics- his fear, his sluggishness, his love 
of comfort. The more I speak of it, the more I see him retire


Orna







From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 25 09:19:44 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:19:44 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
Message-ID: <dm6kvg+ngcf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143470

>Miles:
>And Dumbledore had pulled
>the strings - and failed dramatically. The death of the Potters 
>would be his
>fault - and his biggest regret. And he wants to make up for this 
>fault by
>doing everything for Harry Potter.

>Miles, who waits to see the theory pulled to pieces ;)

Orna: ? happy to do my best:

If DD did it, it would be such an irresponsible reckless thing to 
do! I mean the least thing to do, would have been to ask the Potters 
and Longbottoms , if they agreed to being endangered this way. Now, 
DD has been known to decide for himself not to reveal certain 
information, so he might blunder in this way. But it would mean a 
very big disillusionment, if Harry and ourselves should come to know 
it. I don't feel, DD acts as if he was responsible in such a way to 
the Potters death. I think his interest in Harry had to do, with the 
prophecy on one hand, and Harry's character ? as he came to know 
him. 

Voldemort doesn't even know there is a prophecy ? so why put him on 
track of anybody. And there is a question I have ? if nobody knew 
whom the prophecy concerned ? did the Longbottoms receive enough 
protection? I mean they were tortured after Voldemort's downfall, 
but still, just a thought.

>Miles:
>But we know from Trelawney, that Snape
>was thrown into the room after the entire prophecy.

Orna:
I offered another explanation: Trelawney's prophecy was interrupted 
in the middle, when Snape got caught. She immediately resumed the 
prophecy, when Snape wasn't anymore there. Since she doesn't know 
anything of having made a prophecy, she just knows that Snape 
interfered. And the prophecy itself is cut down to the trance-part 
of it, so Snape's interlude isn't there. (Just my beloved theory, 
<g>)

>Miles:
>And here we are at the point to spread my most beloved theory ;).
 

Orna:
Well, as you see - I can't really tear it down ? so go ahead.(But I 
liked your other prophecy better...)

And another question, which occurred to me ? why didn't Voldemort 
try to kidnap Trelawney then and there to extract the prophecy from 
her?  Does it mean that prophecies are harder to get through than 
memory charms? Or is it sign of his overconfidence in himself? I 
mean ? even the way he acted was some sign of overconfidence ? like 
Harry said ? he never waited to see which boy would seem the more 
dangerous (perhaps he did  plan to kill Neville as well ? just in 
case, so to speak). Why not send some other DE to kill him? I mean, 
he has a prophecy, and does seem very obedient to it ? he wants to 
be the one to do it. Harry could have been killed a thousand times, 
if Voldemort hadn't "protected" him by insisting, that he will be 
the one to kill him, by trying to "prove" to the DE that he is more 
powerful than him. He really marks him as his equal, and gets more 
and more obsessed in rituals. It might suggest, that fear is getting 
more powerful, in spite of his supposedly getting stronger. 

Orna







From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Nov 25 04:37:04 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:37:04 -0500
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm3057+8vbn@eGroups.com>
References: <dm3057+8vbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438694F0.6080009@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143471

lucianam73 wrote:
> according to you; same here with me but since HBP, more specifically 
> Snape's answers to Bellatrix in Chapter 3, I suspect he's loyal to 
> Voldemort.

	Except that there is one rather key action which is not explained: why 
did he tip off the Order of the Phoenix to the raid on the Ministry in a 
timely manner?

	Bart Lidofsky, 1974






From ornawn at 013.net  Fri Nov 25 14:21:35 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:21:35 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
Message-ID: <dm76lf+tvkn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143472



>Whiz: Ohyes! Lots of ideas. Snape is amazing! But in a nutshell, I 
>think
>Snape confunded Trelawney to produce both of her "prophesies" that 
>his main
>motive is to destroy the marauders as well as both Dumbledore and 
>Voldemort and
>return the control of the magical world to purebloods, as Slytherin 
>desired

Orna:
So you mean to say, that the real dark character of the books is 
Snape?

Interesting theory. I find it hard to believe, that the motivating 
force of all these books turns out to be some teenagers grudge ? to 
get rid of the marauders, don't you think so?

Anyway, I read your links, and I agree Snape can be suspected of 
helping Crouch jr. to murder senior. But OTOH it fits well with 
Snape's sadistic behavior towards Harry, and his hatred for Harry's 
special relation to DD. That's also why he wouldn't feel comfortable 
with Moody hinting that he will tell DD that Snape has got it for 
Harry. Although he isn't guilty of putting Harry's name in the 
goblet, he is guilty of trying to get Harry expelled. And another 
thing - wouldn't the interrogation of Crouch jr. reveal something of 
this accomplice he had in Hogwarts?


>Whiz:
>I'll take it a step further. I believe that Snape's animagus is an
>insect, a buzzing insect to be precise. And I'm toying with the idea
>that he's Draco's godfather, though I'm fuzzy on that one.

Canon everywhere. If you're really interested, I'll start rounding it
all up.

Orna:
I'm very interested. And since when is Snape an animagus? And why 
are you so convinced Snape knew about Wormtail? We don't know when 
he was supposed to change sides. It should be sometime after the 
prophecy. So Wormtail might not even been used than as a spy. 

Orna, confused and intrigued (hopefully not confounded) by this new 
theory







From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 25 15:16:54 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:16:54 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dm5v4s+81qv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm79t6+sad5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143473

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" <whizbang121 at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <xmilesx at g...> wrote:
> 
> > Miles: 
> > Would you find me some evidence in canon for this? I recently read
> > GoF, and I never had the idea that Snape knew about the real 
> > identity of Fake!Moody.
> 
> Whiz:  I hope this is allowed.
> http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1770807&postcount=412
> http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1772150&postcount=415
> http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1828168&postcount=458
> 
> These posts are all pre HBP and at the time, I thought Snape wanted to
> get into Harry's head to discover how to kill the DL.  Post HBP, my
> thought is that he is that, as Dumbledore told Harry, he would kill
> for the connection to the DL's thoughts that Harry has.
> 

well, that is one way to look at it.  But it is an interpretation, not
canon that actually stated that Snape knew about Barty Jr or was
helping him.  My interpretation of those scenes, starting with the
staircase showdown, was that Snape was afraid of Mad-Eye, because
Mad-Eye/Jr made threats about getting DE's who got away.  Also, at
this time we didn't know Snape was an ex-DE who was spying for DD.  It
could have been that Snape didn't want Mad-Eye poking around in his
head and that Snape has had his office searched by Mad-Eye/Jr against
Snape's wishes.  

The second scene outside of DD's office - I just chalked that up to
Snape being, well, Snape.  He has no love for Harry.  Or maybe he knew
that DD was coming down and wanted to torment Harry a bit.  Not saying
it is right that Snape does this, but that is how I viewed it.  

The Foe-Glass to me tells me that Snape is not helping Barty.  That is
canon - 
"Oh that's my Foe-Glass.  See them out there, skulking around?  I'm
not really in trouble until I see the whites of their eyes".  p 343 Am
Ed Hardcover GoF

"Moody was thrown backward onto the office floor. Harry, still
starting at the place where Moody's face had been, saw Albus
Dumbledore, Professor Snape and Professor McGonagall looking back at
him out of the Foe-Glass".  p. 679 GoF


> 
> 
> To be rid of muggleborns and bloodtraitors.  This is all political,
> it's all about power.
> 
> Hermione points out that if all the DEs were purebloods, there
> wouldn't be very many of them.  Remember, purebloods don't hate
> halfbloods near as much as they do muggleborns and half breeds.  While
> they would dominate half bloods, they will tolerate them.  We know
> little of Snape's ancestry.  His mother may have come from an
> influencial family.  He certainly was friendly enough with purebloods.

but isn't Snape's own life in danger once all the muggleborns &
half-bloods are gone - there are no half-breeds, they are called
half-bloods.  Playing a dangerous game isn't he?  And as much as I
think Snape is not proud or happy of his past choices as a DE, I doubt
he has that much self-loathing for himself, that he would help LV to
destroy all the non-purebloods, which would include himself or if
Snape wasn't killed, to be less than a wizard - a slave to the
purebloods.  Nah, I can't see it.  Remember, many in the wizarding
community thought that LV was on the right track until LV got it into
his head that non-purebloods should be destroyed.  

> 
> I'll take it a step further.  I believe that Snape's animagus is an
> insect, a buzzing insect to be precise.  And I'm toying with the idea
> that he's Draco's godfather, though I'm fuzzy on that one.

what does Snape's animagus have to do with Snape helping Barty Jr? 
And many people have stated they believe that Snape's animagus is also
an insect - a bee, in fact.  To show loyality to DD.  


Purebloods like the Malfoys would never have a half-blood like Snape
be in any way, shape or form, connected somehow in the family.  A
godfather's role is to help raise the child if the parents die or to
offer spiritual advise.  The Malfoys use Snape and he uses them back.
 I doubt think Snape is *that* close to the Malfoys at all.  I think
Snape is the go-to guy for them, but a godfather?  

colebiancardi
(interpretation of scenes is not canon.  Otherwise, all my bright
ideas could be called canon as well!!)






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 15:41:58 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:41:58 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm76lf+tvkn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7bc6+a0bg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143474

> >Whiz:
 Ohyes! Lots of ideas. Snape is amazing! But in a nutshell, I 
> >think
> >Snape confunded Trelawney to produce both of her "prophesies" that 
> >his main
> >motive is to destroy the marauders as well as both Dumbledore and 
> >Voldemort and
> >return the control of the magical world to purebloods, as 
Slytherin 
> >desired
> 
> Orna:
> So you mean to say, that the real dark character of the books is 
> Snape?
> 
> Interesting theory. I find it hard to believe, that the motivating 
> force of all these books turns out to be some teenagers grudge ? to 
> get rid of the marauders, don't you think so?

Alla:

Personally, I could never understand the argument that if it turns 
out that Snape did all those bad things, which we speculate he did, 
it means that Snape is the real dark character of the series and 
Voldie will fade into background, therefore it is impossible that 
Snape did all those things.

I apologise if I misunderstood you and you meant something different 
here.

But in case I understood you correctly, JKR remarked that she writes 
about different kinds of evil, therefore I am not sure what will stop 
Snape from being one of those kinds.

I am of the opinion that Snape will turn out to be " the everyday 
evil" type, but to me it is quite a possibility that dear Severus 
will aim much higher than that.

As to the "getting rid of marauders" being the driving force of the 
books, I think that there are some very significant hints that Snape 
getting rid of Marauders for good is ALREADY one of the driving 
forces behind major events. Not the only one and probably not the 
most important, but to me it absolutely could be there.

Let's see. We know that Snape told Voldemort about first part of the 
Prophecy. He may have tried to save the Potters of course, or not.

We know that Snape threatened to feed Sirius and Lupin to Dementors. 
Of course one can say that he would not have done it,ever, but I 
speculate that the only reason that he did not do it in the forest 
was because he wanted to be recognised for capturing them.

We know that Snape let it slip about Remus' condition. Of course it 
is possible that he was concerned about safety of his students, but I 
think that it is just as reasonable to assume that the only thing he 
was concerned about was to make poor Remus leave his first paying job 
in years. Maybe Snape was hoping he would starve to death or 
something like that?

Oh, and of course we have Snape telling Bella that he played a role 
in Sirius' death. Now, we know that Kreacher went to Malfoys, but as 
far as I remember there is nothing in canon which stops me from 
speculating that Snape gave the information to Voldemort about 
special bond between Harry and Sirius thus making Voldemort decide 
that the person he should lure Harry with would be Sirius OR that 
Snape went to Malfoys too with the same information Kreacher did, 
just in case  you know. :-)

Of course I am speculating  here, but I think those are canonbased 
speculations. I think it is very reasonable that JKR may show how 
destructive teenager grudges could be and how it may turn the person, 
who cannot let go into the true evil.

JMO,

Alla






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 17:35:16 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:35:16 -0000
Subject: Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7h8k+6pou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7i0k+jvif@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143476


Colebiancardi:
 However, Alla wrote that Snape may aim higher than the
> everyday evil and I must use the same argument back.  Voldemort is 
the
> Supreme Evil in this story, not Snape.  So, while I can concede, but
> not agree, that Snape could be evil with a small *e* and could help
> Voldemort, I cannot concede that his importance at being evil would
> surpass Voldy's.  Just as I don't believe that Snape could ever
> surpass Harry in the hero mode and the focus of the story.

Alla:

The original argument if I understood it correctly was that there 
could be only ONE evil in the story and that is Voldemort. I am not 
sure why this necessarily could be true.

Okay, Snape would not be as evil as Voldemort, but he could still be 
Evil, just second in command, for example. No?

Does it make sense? I am just not getting why Snape cannot be evil if 
Harry has to battle Voldemort at the end? I also don't understand how 
do you know that Harry will not have to battle Snape BEFORE or after 
he battles Voldemort?

The way I see it even if Snape is lesser evil, he still has to be 
dealt with.




Colebiancardi:
> As far as destructive teenager grudges, I don't think that means 
that
> one who cannot let go turn will turn that person into *true* evil. 

Alla:

Of course it does not necessarily mean that, I am just arguing that 
this is a possibility, that is all.

Colebiancardi:
And we do
> have the problem of Harry, who has a major teenage grudge against
> Snape at the end HBP;  so much so, that it can be called 
destructive -
> he went after 4 DE's, Draco & Snape, just to get to Snape.

Alla:

Huh? You are calling witnessing the murder of Dumbledore and desire 
to get Snape because of that a "teenage grudge"?

I would like to register a strong disagreement with this argument, if 
I did not misunderstand you.

JMO,

Alla








From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 25 17:35:30 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:35:30 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7bc6+a0bg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7i12+2r0r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143477

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

>
> But in case I understood you correctly, JKR remarked that she writes
> about different kinds of evil, therefore I am not sure what will stop
> Snape from being one of those kinds.
>
> I am of the opinion that Snape will turn out to be " the everyday
> evil" type, but to me it is quite a possibility that dear Severus
> will aim much higher than that.
>
<big snip>

> Of course I am speculating here, but I think those are canonbased
> speculations. I think it is very reasonable that JKR may show how
> destructive teenager grudges could be and how it may turn the person,
> who cannot let go into the true evil.
>

Now I have read that those in the Snape-is-evil camp don't care for
the DDM!Snape because they feel that this is Harry's story; it is for
Harry to be the Hero, not Snape - although I am a DDM!Snape person, I
feel that Harry will still be the hero, not Snape. He just gets help
from Snape. However, Alla wrote that Snape may aim higher than the
everyday evil and I must use the same argument back. Voldemort is the
Supreme Evil in this story, not Snape. So, while I can concede, but
not agree, that Snape could be evil with a small *e* and could help
Voldemort, I cannot concede that his importance at being evil would
surpass Voldy's. Just as I don't believe that Snape could ever
surpass Harry in the hero mode and the focus of the story.

The end game of this series is Harry & Voldemort, not Harry & Snape,
not Snape & Voldemort, not even Dumbledore, Harry, Snape & Voldy.

As far as destructive teenager grudges, I don't think that means that
one who cannot let go turn will turn that person into *true* evil.
Sirius never let go of his hatred & grudge against Snape. And we do
have the problem of Harry, who has a major teenage grudge against
Snape at the end HBP; so much so, that it can be called destructive -
he went after 4 DE's, Draco & Snape, just to get to Snape. Never mind
that he could have died in the attempt, never mind that he wasn't
prepared, never mind that he could have destroyed EVERYTHING that
Dumbledore had been training him to do - the end game - the
destruction of Voldemort. And now, Harry hates Snape more than
Voldemort. That is destructive, IMHO. He is losing sight of the true
Evil (with a capital E) which is Voldemort, not Snape. Sure, Snape &
Harry's relationship is deeply personal, whereas Voldemort's & Harry's
is not, but that is the problem. Harry is channeling his energies
towards a personal grudge/hatred, instead of the universal Evil. He
sees the trees, but not the forest and I think Harry in book 7 has to
start looking beyond his own personal scope. I believe he can(he has
to!) and will.

JHMO

colebiancardi









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 17:52:38 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:52:38 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7bc6+a0bg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7j16+g7j6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143478

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> 
> As to the "getting rid of marauders" being the driving force of the
books, I think that there are some very significant hints that Snape
getting rid of Marauders for good is ALREADY one of the driving forces
behind major events. Not the only one and probably not the most
important, but to me it absolutely could be there.
> 
> Let's see. We know that Snape told Voldemort about first part of the
Prophecy. He may have tried to save the Potters of course, or not.

Carol responds:
But Harry had not been born yet at the time of the Prophecy, which
takes place on a "cold, wet night," presumably either in winter 1979
or spring 1980. So at that time neither Severus nor Voldemort could
have known who the Prophecy referred to. Possibly, once young Snape
realized that LV intended to kill the baby and his parents, he was
keeping an eye on the birth announcements in the Daily Prophet. He may
have gone to Dumbledore immediately after the births of Harry and
Neville were announced. But until that time, he could not possibly
have known who would be "born as the seventh month died." (BTW, I
don't think he knew who Trelawney was since neither he nor she had yet
taught at Hogwarts, so he couldn't have revealed that info to LV.
Trelawney probably didn't know who he was, either, but recognized him
later when he became the Potions teacher.)
> 
Alla wrote:
> We know that Snape threatened to feed Sirius and Lupin to Dementors.
Of course one can say that he would not have done it,ever, but I
speculate that the only reason that he did not do it in the forest was
because he wanted to be recognised for capturing them.

Carol responds:
Snape did not overhear the entire conversation in the Shrieking Shack,
nor did he see any evidence that Peter Pettigrew was actually present.
In his state of mind--determined to prove that he was right about the
werewolf helping the homicidal maniac and mass murderer (his view)
into Hogwarts, his restraint in *not* killing Sirius when he had the
chance is amazing. I do agree that he wanted credit for capturing them
and for rescuing the kids from the werewolf. What's important, I
think, is not what he wanted to do, but what he actually did--which is
conjure up stretchers to convey the unconscious kids and "murderer" to
Hogwarts. Snape also had the opportunity to murder Remus Lupin, or
expose him before he endangered any students, by "accidentally"
messing up the potion. Instead, "he made it, and he made it
perfectly," to quote Lupin in HBP.

Alla wrote: 
> We know that Snape let it slip about Remus' condition. Of course it
is possible that he was concerned about safety of his students, but I
think that it is just as reasonable to assume that the only thing he
was concerned about was to make poor Remus leave his first paying job
in years. Maybe Snape was hoping he would starve to death or something
like that?

Carol responds:
The truth about Lupin would have come out in any case. Fudge by this
time knew that he was a werewolf, and Lupin himself would have
resigned as an act of contrition. He had failed to take his potion and
run outside knowing that there were students on the grounds: Scabbers
was in Ron's pocket, so if he saw PP on the map, he also saw Ron. It
was his *duty* to resign, as I'm sure DD would have reminded him.
(Besides, he was a victim of the DADA curse. You teach that class, you
 lose your job--or worse. Voldemort has made sure of that.)
> 
Alla wrote:
> Oh, and of course we have Snape telling Bella that he played a role 
> in Sirius' death. Now, we know that Kreacher went to Malfoys, but as 
> far as I remember there is nothing in canon which stops me from 
> speculating that Snape gave the information to Voldemort about 
> special bond between Harry and Sirius thus making Voldemort decide 
> that the person he should lure Harry with would be Sirius OR that 
> Snape went to Malfoys too with the same information Kreacher did, 
> just in case you know. :-)

Carol responds:
Surely Wormtail, who was with Voldemort for a full year before
restoring him, would have informed Voldemort of the details of his
escape, including Lupin's transformation into a werewolf and Black's
Animagus form. And Voldemort would already know that they had both
been members of the Order of the Phoenix. Neither Snape nor Kreacher
can reveal the location of the headquarters of the Order, but Kreacher
provides the details about Black's relationship with Harry. (That's
canon. Snape going to the Malfoys is speculation.) 

What else could Snape have revealed besides this information? I think
he's simply lying to Bellatrix about revealing information on Black,
and probably on Emmeline Vance as well. (As I noted in an earlier
post, he's taken care to establish that Bellatrix is no longer in a
position to confirm the truth or falsity of his statements by asking
Voldemort about them.) I can't prove that I'm right, but it's
certainly as likely that Snape was lying as that he provided any
useful information on Black other than that provided by Pettigrew or
Kreacher. 

Whatever Snape's motive is (and I do think his remorse and his loyalty
to Dumbledore are genuine), I'm willing to bet it isn't "getting rid
of the Marauders." He owed James a life debt. For that reason alone,
he wouldn't have wanted him to die. And he has saved, or attempted to
save, Harry's life more than once, and rescued him from a Crucio in
HBP when he could easily have let the DE continue torturing him if
hurting Harry gave him sadistic pleasure. Yes, Snape has some old
grudges against the Marauders that he's unwilling to let go, but he is
not responsible for Lupin's dismissal or for Sirius Black's death, and
he's only partially responsible for James's (and Lily's) murders. Lest
we forget, it was Wormtail who betrayed the Potters and Voldemort who
killed them, and neither of them has shown any trace of remorse.

Carol, wondering why some posters still think that Snape was at
Godric's Hollow when we know from HBP that he was teaching at Hogwarts
(and JKR has made it clear that Wormtail witnessed the Potters'
murders and retrieved Voldemort's wand)






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 18:02:02 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:02:02 -0000
Subject: What was Harry's role in Slughorn's house? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4,
In-Reply-To: <dm5p4n+odr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7jiq+ocvl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143479


> Alla:

> Going back to your question, now I start doubting myself - is it 
> really enough gain for Slughorn to come back to Hogwarts only 
> because of the possibility that Harry would join his club? It is not 
> even a guarantee.
> 
a_svirn:
He used Harry as bait alright. In fact he used Harry exactly as 
Scrimgeour tried to use him: Dumbledore effectively demonstrated to 
Slughorn that he had the Chosen One on his side. This was the lure so 
impossible to resist, not Harry's eyes or possibility of his joining 
the Club. 






From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Nov 25 18:03:02 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:03:02 -0000
Subject: Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7i0k+jvif@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7jkm+k8dd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143480

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> Colebiancardi:
>  However, Alla wrote that Snape may aim higher than the
> > everyday evil and I must use the same argument back.  Voldemort is 
> the
> > Supreme Evil in this story, not Snape.  So, while I can concede, but
> > not agree, that Snape could be evil with a small *e* and could help
> > Voldemort, I cannot concede that his importance at being evil would
> > surpass Voldy's.  Just as I don't believe that Snape could ever
> > surpass Harry in the hero mode and the focus of the story.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> The original argument if I understood it correctly was that there 
> could be only ONE evil in the story and that is Voldemort. I am not 
> sure why this necessarily could be true.
> 
> Okay, Snape would not be as evil as Voldemort, but he could still be 
> Evil, just second in command, for example. No?
> 
> Does it make sense? I am just not getting why Snape cannot be evil if 
> Harry has to battle Voldemort at the end? I also don't understand how 
> do you know that Harry will not have to battle Snape BEFORE or after 
> he battles Voldemort?
> 
third post of the day, so if I don't respond back to you until
tomorrow, please forgive me :)  Where did I state that Harry will not
have to battle Snape before or after Voldemort?  I don't believe I
did.  All I stated that is I could concede, but not agree, that Snape
is evil with a small *e*, not a capitol E.  That if Snape is evil,
then he would be helping Voldemort.  I am not sure where you read that
I wrote that Harry won't battle Snape.  

And I don't think Snape is second in command to Voldemort - I don't
think Voldy trusts Snape all that much, but based on what followers
Voldemort has, Snape is probably the most powerful.  I think Snape,
regardless of his true nature, better watch his step around Voldemort
- I don't think Voldy likes to share his limelight too much.  


> The way I see it even if Snape is lesser evil, he still has to be 
> dealt with.
> 

Yes.  If Snape is evil :)  which I do not believe he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Colebiancardi:
> And we do
> > have the problem of Harry, who has a major teenage grudge against
> > Snape at the end HBP;  so much so, that it can be called 
> destructive -
> > he went after 4 DE's, Draco & Snape, just to get to Snape.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Huh? You are calling witnessing the murder of Dumbledore and desire 
> to get Snape because of that a "teenage grudge"?
>

Harry's hatred of Snape goes way back further than the *murder* of
Dumbledore.  Harry even acknowledges in the beginning of HBP, when
Snape is escorting him to the castle, that he knows it is wrong, but
"it enabled hm to blame Snape, which felt satisfying." p. 161 Am
Hardcover Ed HBP.  So, what Harry witnessed on the tower, which is
still open to interpretation, only gives him another reason to hate
Snape.  And as I stated, he risked everything, including the end-game
that Dumbledore had been training him to do - to destroy Voldemort, to
go after Snape, knowing he was outnumbered and alone and unprepared. 
He jumped the gun.  What if Harry had been killed at that moment?  Do
you really think that it would matter that he got Snape or not at this
point?  Was it going to bring Dumbledore back to life?  Do you think
that DD would have wanted Harry to risk all at this point & time? The
reason why Harry went after Snape was pure emotion and fantasy: 
"Terror tore at Harry's heart...He had to get to Dumbledore and he had
to catch Snape....Somehow the two things were linked...He could
reverse what had happened if he had them both together...Dumbledore
could not have died..." HBP, p. 598

Harry is not thinking clearly at this point.  Not that I blame him. 
However, what happened on the tower added to the years of hatred &
mistrust Harry has felt towards Snape, even though Dumbledore told him
otherwise.  There was nothing to be gained by catching & killing Snape
other than to *avenge* the death of Dumbledore, based on what Harry
saw on the tower.  Harry still doesn't think clearly about Snape, as
he told the staff that Snape's remorse & the trust that DD placed in
him was that Snape was sorry his parent's were dead.(p616)  That is
not true.  Snape, according to DD, had deep remorse over how Voldemort
interpreted the prophecy(p 549), but Snape turned prior to their death. 

Harry is making the case against Snape not by facts, but by twisting
the words of Dumbledore to make his case against Snape.  Even if I
believed in ESE!Snape, I would say that is dishonest of Harry and he
will do anything to further his grudge and try to make others follow
him down this path.  I think that even you would agree that Harry's
grudge against Snape begins a lot earlier than that night on the
tower.     
 
the recklessness that Harry exhibited, although noble in its intent,
by going after Snape went he did, does show a wildly emotional side
that should have been tempered by reason.  Just as with Sirius, he is
not thinking things through.  Even though *love* is his gift, the
thing to destroy Voldemort, that doesn't excuse the lack of his
thinking processes.  He could get killed before he gets the job done
or worse, get others killed in the process.  He needs to slow down and
find out who the true villian is, which is not Snape.  It is
Voldemort.  If Snape blocks his way to Voldemort, then yes, Harry
would need to take Snape out - but Harry should not go out of his way
to get Snape.

colebiancardi






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 18:15:44 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:15:44 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7j16+g7j6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7kcg+42bt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143481

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
>  Snape also had the opportunity to murder Remus Lupin, or
> expose him before he endangered any students, by "accidentally"
> messing up the potion. Instead, "he made it, and he made it
> perfectly," to quote Lupin in HBP.

Alla:

Did he REALLY have the opportunity to poison Remus right under the 
Dumbledore's nose? Of course I will be the first to argue that 
Dumbledore made some major mistakes when it comes to "psychology", 
but would he fail to realize who did it, if Remus would have been 
found poisoned in his rooms?

I think Snape valued his job too much to risk it. Shrieking Shack on 
the other hand is totally different story. Here he has an opportunity 
to silence Remus forever and to be everybody's hero, IMO.



> Carol responds:
> The truth about Lupin would have come out in any case. <SNIP>. It
> was his *duty* to resign, as I'm sure DD would have reminded him.
> (Besides, he was a victim of the DADA curse. You teach that class, 
you
>  lose your job--or worse. Voldemort has made sure of that.)

Alla:

It does not matter ( to me of course) whether truth about Lupin would 
have come out in any event or not and I am not sure that it was his 
DUTY to resign. Moral duty, maybe, legal - not so sure. In any event, 
as far as I can remember it was NOT Snape's duty to talk about Remus' 
condition. In fact, I won't be surprised if he received some major 
tongue lashing from Dumbledore for that.

Rather long time ago I read a very interesting speculation ( not on 
this site) that because of Snape's behavior in PoA, Dumbledore did 
not trust him as much as he used to ( not personally, but to provide 
safety of the school). Remember that in CoS, PoA, Snape often patrols 
the grounds. Was he doing it in GoF? I cannot remember. I think 
Dumbledore saw how much Snape's grudge could get the best of him 
still and that was one of the reasons why he summoned Moody to the 
school.

Just speculating here of course.

Again, of course Remus became the victim of the curse, but I am not 
sure I buy that the  curse works in that great details - namely that 
curse forced Snape to reveal his condition





> Carol responds:
> Surely Wormtail, who was with Voldemort for a full year before
> restoring him, would have informed Voldemort of the details of his
> escape, including Lupin's transformation into a werewolf and Black's
> Animagus form. 

Alla:

Maybe, maybe not. We don't hear Wormtail telling us that he provided 
information about Sirius, we DO hear about it from Snape.

Carol:
And Voldemort would already know that they had both
> been members of the Order of the Phoenix. Neither Snape nor Kreacher
> can reveal the location of the headquarters of the Order, but 
Kreacher
> provides the details about Black's relationship with Harry. (That's
> canon. Snape going to the Malfoys is speculation.)

Alla:

Yes, as I stated several times in my previous post - it WAS mostly 
speculative, but even though Snape going to Malfoys is speculation, 
Snape providing information is canon. It could be a false canon or it 
could be truth for all I know. :-)


 Carol:
<SNIP>
I can't prove that I'm right, but it's
> certainly as likely that Snape was lying as that he provided any
> useful information on Black other than that provided by Pettigrew or
> Kreacher. 

Alla:

Well, of course it is just as likely. All that I am saying that the 
possibility of him telling the truth to me is just as strong, so I 
can entertain BOTH in my mind. :-)

Carol: 
<SNIP>
Lest
> we forget, it was Wormtail who betrayed the Potters and Voldemort 
who
> killed them, and neither of them has shown any trace of remorse.


Alla:

Erm... I still think that Wormtail could show some remorse in book 7 
or not, as to Voldemort - I don't expect him to show any remorse. I 
DO expect to see a lot of remorse from Snape though, if he is indeed 
a good guy for all the horror he helped to turn Harry's life into by 
telling Voldemort about prophecy if nothing else.


Of course just my opinion,

Alla







From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 18:19:48 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:19:48 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dm79t6+sad5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7kk4+5tus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143482

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:

> well, that is one way to look at it.  But it is an interpretation, 
> not canon that actually stated that Snape knew about Barty Jr or was
> helping him. 

Whiz: 
It's not so much interpretation as looking at the scene from Snape's
PoV.   
colebiancardi:
 My interpretation of those scenes, starting with the
> staircase showdown, was that Snape was afraid of Mad-Eye, because
> Mad-Eye/Jr made threats about getting DE's who got away.  Also, at
> this time we didn't know Snape was an ex-DE who was spying for DD.  It
> could have been that Snape didn't want Mad-Eye poking around in his
> head and that Snape has had his office searched by Mad-Eye/Jr against
> Snape's wishes.  
> 
> The second scene outside of DD's office - I just chalked that up to
> Snape being, well, Snape.  He has no love for Harry.  Or maybe he knew
> that DD was coming down and wanted to torment Harry a bit.  Not saying
> it is right that Snape does this, but that is how I viewed it.  

Whiz:
And that is Harry's PoV, and we all know that Harry is so dreadfully
uninformed about nearly everything that his PoV is hopelessly limited
by the little information he does have.  Remember, Snape grabbed the
Dark Mark on his arm and Harry had no idea why.  At that point,
neither did we, but we discovered the reason later on.

colebiancardi: 
> The Foe-Glass to me tells me that Snape is not helping Barty.  That is
> canon - 
> "Oh that's my Foe-Glass.  See them out there, skulking around?  I'm
> not really in trouble until I see the whites of their eyes".  p 343 Am
> Ed Hardcover GoF
> 
> "Moody was thrown backward onto the office floor. Harry, still
> starting at the place where Moody's face had been, saw Albus
> Dumbledore, Professor Snape and Professor McGonagall looking back at
> him out of the Foe-Glass".  p. 679 GoF

Whiz:
Why would you think this means that Snape did not help BartyJr?  If he
helped Crouch/Moody against his will while plotting against him,
wouldn't he show up in the foe glass?  Remember, Barty hates a DE that
got away, and Snape would like to do just that.  
But, BartyJr answers to Vodle, and Snape can't take the chance that
BartyJr will carry tales of his disloyalty back to the DL.  He may not
want to be a DE, but Snape still has that nasty tattoo on his arm.

colebiancardi:
> but isn't Snape's own life in danger once all the muggleborns &
> half-bloods are gone - there are no half-breeds, they are called
> half-bloods.  

Whiz:
Hagrid, Fleur and Flitwick are all halfbreeds.

QUOTE: OotP, ch 33
"Of course not," said Hermione scathingly. "Hagrid might have set it
off accidentally"

"Yes," said Umbridge, whose excitement seemed to be mounting. "Yes, he
would have done, of course, the great half-breed oaf."

QUOTE: OotP ch 33
"That's right!" said Umbridge, in an even higher voice, "so be very
careful! By the laws laid down by the Department for the Regulation
and Control of Magical Creatures, any attack by half-breeds such as
yourselves on a human -"

"What did you call us?" shouted a wild-looking black centaur,-

Hagrid is part giant, Flitwick is part goblin and Fleur is part Veela.

Why would Snape's life be in danger?  Purebloods tolerate half bloods.
 As Hermione points out, the DEs would be happy to have Ron or Harry,
it's muggleborns like her they want to eliminate.  


colebiancardi:
Playing a dangerous game isn't he?  

Whiz:
Yes.  


colebiancardi:
> Remember, many in the wizarding community thought that LV was on the
> right track until LV got it into  his head that non-purebloods 
> should be destroyed.  

Whiz: ??????

QUOTE OotP page 6:
"No, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right idea,
they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, getting rid
of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge. They weren't alone,
either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his
true colours, who thought he had the right idea about things... they
got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power,
though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero
for joining up at first."

They thought that Voldemort had the right idea when he did want to
purify the race.  They changed their minds when they realized he
wanted power for himself.


colebiancardi: 
> > I'll take it a step further.  I believe that Snape's animagus is an
> > insect, a buzzing insect to be precise.  And I'm toying with the idea
> > that he's Draco's godfather, though I'm fuzzy on that one.
> 
> what does Snape's animagus have to do with Snape helping Barty Jr? 
> And many people have stated they believe that Snape's animagus is also
> an insect - a bee, in fact.  To show loyality to DD.  

Whiz:
QUOTE  PoA, ch 16:
 'Harry was now the only person left to be tested.  He settled himself
on the floor with his back against the wall, listening to a fly
buzzing in the sunny window, his mind across the grounds with Hagrid.'

This was immediately before Trelawney gave Harry her second prophesy.

QUOTE OotP ch 31
 'It was several seconds before it occurred to him that he had not
taken in a word of it; there was a wasp buzzing distractingly against
one of the high windows. Slowly, tortuously, he at last began to write
an answer.'

This was immediately before Harry, unable to think straight, slipped
into the corridor dream.  I'm suggesting that Snape is responsible for
both.  And Snape gives a good explanation of the confundus charm and
it's effects at the end of PoA.

> Purebloods like the Malfoys would never have a half-blood like Snape
> be in any way, shape or form, connected somehow in the family.  A
> godfather's role is to help raise the child if the parents die or to
> offer spiritual advise.  The Malfoys use Snape and he uses them back.
>  I doubt think Snape is *that* close to the Malfoys at all.  

Whiz: 
The books suggest otherwise.  Narcissa calls Snape, Lucius good
friend.  And we know nothing about Snape's mother or her connections
in the magical world.  

colebiancardi:
> I think Snape is the go-to guy for them, but a godfather?  

Whiz:
Snape is an extrememly powerful wizard, well versed in the Dark Arts
and with unknown familial connections.  Now if you were a dark wizard
choosing a godfather for your child .....
> 
> colebiancardi
> (interpretation of scenes is not canon.  Otherwise, all my bright
> ideas could be called canon as well!!)

Whiz: I would argue that extrapolation is not canon.  But I'm not sure
that looking at scenes from a different point of view is noncanonical.
 I didn't change a word or extrapolate any possibilities.  I merely
looked at the scene on the stairs from the point of view of someone
with more backstory and information than Harry had at that time.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 18:50:53 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:50:53 -0000
Subject: Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7jkm+k8dd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7med+t6d7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143484

Colebiancardi:
<SNIP>

 I am not sure where you read that
> I wrote that Harry won't battle Snape.

Alla:

Sorry, I probably misunderstood you saying that the end of the story 
will be about Voldemort and Harry, not Harry and Snape, etc.
  

Colebiancardi: 
> And I don't think Snape is second in command to Voldemort - I don't
> think Voldy trusts Snape all that much, but based on what followers
> Voldemort has, Snape is probably the most powerful.  I think Snape,
> regardless of his true nature, better watch his step around 
Voldemort
> - I don't think Voldy likes to share his limelight too much.  

Alla:

I brought up "second in command" example as trying to counterargue 
that Snape cannot be another Evil, that is all. I mean, do Bella, 
Lestrange, etc, somehow become less evil just because Voldie is the 
boss? Just wondering here.

 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Huh? You are calling witnessing the murder of Dumbledore and 
desire 
> > to get Snape because of that a "teenage grudge"?
> >

Colebiancardi: 
<SNIP>
Do
> you really think that it would matter that he got Snape or not at 
this
> point?  Was it going to bring Dumbledore back to life?  Do you think
> that DD would have wanted Harry to risk all at this point & time? 
The
> reason why Harry went after Snape was pure emotion and fantasy: 
> "Terror tore at Harry's heart...He had to get to Dumbledore and he 
had
> to catch Snape....Somehow the two things were linked...He could
> reverse what had happened if he had them both together...Dumbledore
> could not have died..." HBP, p. 598

Alla:

Erm... I think that it does not matter whether Harry's hatred of 
Snape goes way back. In fact I don't think it goes THAT back. Before 
end of OOP I don't remember Harry saying that he ever HATED Snape, 
but of course he hated Snape during HBP, no argument from me.

I cannot agree that ANY decent person after witnessing the murder of 
his beloved mentor( Of course it is just my interpretation) right in 
front of his eyes can do anything else but to try and catch the 
murderer. In fact, if Harry started rationalizing his actions , I 
would think that there is something very, very wrong with him.



Colebiancardi:
> Harry is not thinking clearly at this point.  Not that I blame him. 
> However, what happened on the tower added to the years of hatred &
> mistrust Harry has felt towards Snape, even though Dumbledore told 
him
> otherwise.  There was nothing to be gained by catching & killing 
Snape
> other than to *avenge* the death of Dumbledore, based on what Harry
> saw on the tower. 

Alla:

Well, as I said above to me it would be very weird if Harry started 
to think what is to be GAINED by catching Snape at that moment. Of 
course it added to the years of hatred  and mistrust, Snape just 
killed Dumbledore. 


Colebiancardi:
> Harry is making the case against Snape not by facts, but by twisting
> the words of Dumbledore to make his case against Snape.  Even if I
> believed in ESE!Snape, I would say that is dishonest of Harry and he
> will do anything to further his grudge and try to make others follow
> him down this path.  I think that even you would agree that Harry's
> grudge against Snape begins a lot earlier than that night on the
> tower.  

Alla:

Sorry, I disagree. Harry makes the case against Snape by facts and 
the facts are he just witnessed him killing Headmaster. Could it be 
that Harry has limited evidence and he would have to reevaluate his 
judgment later? Of course, but right now with the evidence he has, I 
completely disagree that Harry is acting to further his "grudge", 
which I even disagree should be called so.

   
JMO,

Alla, who knows it is number four of her posts, but since she did not 
do it in ages, literally, she is not going to iron her fingers too 
hard. :-)







From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Fri Nov 25 19:36:34 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:36:34 -0000
Subject: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
Message-ID: <dm7p42+uo5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143485

How does Snape spy?

I've pondered this question for along time and would like to throw 
out an idea.

Quick_Silver's idea: Snape's mission has never been about getting 
information from Voldemort or his followers. Oh there's no doubt 
that if the chance came up he'd pass along something useful to the 
Order and Dumbledore but that was never his primary purpose. Snape's 
main mission was to rescue/advise fellow DE's that wanted to leave 
Voldemort's camp. 

Why do I think this?

First: Lupin and Hagrid both function as spies among two enemy 
groups, the werewolves and the giants, and although they provide 
insight into Voldemort's campaign among other groups both state that 
their main purpose was to spread Dumbledore's message among said 
groups. Both speak of trying to convince members to join the 
campaign against Voldemort (and the limited success that said 
message had).

When a chance arises to help Draco, i.e. the Unbreakable Vow, Snape 
certainly seems to take the opportunity. Snape's knows that a lot of 
what Draco is experiencing is probably bravo and naivet? and would 
certain realize that Draco is a prime candidate for conversion to 
the "Good" side.

Second: Snape is always at Hogwarts throughout book 5 and 6. I can't 
recall Harry ever noticing that Snape was missing for even moderate 
amounts of time during these years whereas Hermione quickly notices 
that Dumbledore is missing during book 6. As a spy, against 
Voldemort, Snape seems to spend almost the entirety of his time 
among Dumbledore's camp...the one place that he doesn't need to be. 

Third: What information has Snape provided to the Light side that is 
of true importance? The actions of the Order is book 5/6 seem to be 
based more on Dumbledore's assumptions about Voldemort's plans then 
any inside information. Dumbledore states at the end of GoF what the 
ministry needs to do and when the ministry fails to do it the Order 
does. Lupin states that Dumbledore has a shrewd idea what Voldemort 
is up to (the prophecy) and considering that Voldemort basically 
told Harry his goals in the graveyard...almost none of the 
information in OotP can be traced back to Snape's spying (no wonder 
Harry annoys Snape...Harry's a better spy at 14 then Snape's ever 
been). Snape failed to give any heads up about the attack on Arthur 
(which is understandable...that was probably known to Voldemort 
alone), he fails to inform the Order about the break out from 
Azkaban (unless Dumbledore and McGonagall are grave simply because 
it finally happened), and he's clearly in the dark about the plot 
against Harry at the end despite the fact the DE in the DoM seem to 
have been given fairly detailed information on the plan (i.e. 
Bellatrix says the Dark Lord always knows and several laughed when 
Harry mentioned Sirius). 

When Snape does act at the end of OotP he is little more then a 
glorified runner boy carrying messages. Even his suggestion that 
Sirius should stay behind is laughable...Snape wouldn't be able to 
say how many DEs were going to be there so leaving a man behind is 
the height of recklessness especially considering that Sirius is 
simply able to order Kreacher to pass along the message (which he 
does
Dumbledore then delays to find out way Kreacher is laughing).

The only statement by Dumbledore that I can think of that implies 
information from within Voldemort's camp is when he talks about 
Voldemort's reaction to the loss of a Horcrux and his anger at 
Lucius.

Fourth: Most of the information about the Horcruxs doesn't seem to 
come from DE sources i.e. Dumbledore seems to have collected most of 
it himself. It can't even be conclusively stated that Snape knows 
what a Horcrux is. 

In conclusion: I personally believe that Snape is good (as much as 
he troubles me) but I don't believe that his purpose in the story is 
as much to provide information to the Order or Harry as it is to 
remind them that there are human being on the other side. Snape (and 
also Draco) are a lesson to Harry that he must remember his mercy 
(and remember the limits of his mercy).

Quick_Silver (waiting for this idea to be torn apart)









From widgetsparky at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 25 19:52:00 2005
From: widgetsparky at hotmail.com (widgetsparky)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:52:00 -0000
Subject: SNAPE - is he actually bad?
Message-ID: <dm7q10+9ank@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143486

An issue which runs through all of the books and one which im sure 
gets everyone thinking. Does anyone else feel as i do that he is still 
on the side of the Order? My reasons for this are:

Snape is trusted by Dumbledore - not made apparent why but im sure it 
will. Dumbledore can make mistakes but not one that huge.
The Unbreakable Bond meant that it was either Snape or Dumbledore 
who would have to die, as if Malfoy was harmed Snape would die. Maybe 
Dumbledore though that Snape is more important than himself. He also believed 
that Harry is more important than himself.



what you reckon???

Widget








From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 19:53:46 2005
From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:53:46 -0000
Subject: No Hogwarts Express at the end of HBP?
Message-ID: <dm7q4a+9l0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143487

Can anyone think of any significance for the book not ending with the 
trip home on the Hogwarts Express? I believe every other HP book ended 
at King's Cross. It makes me wonder if the seventh book will pick up 
essentially where HBP left off - if maybe there is more that will 
happen on this day, or before Harry gets back to Privet Drive that we 
don't know about yet. 









From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 21:20:15 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:20:15 -0000
Subject: Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7i0k+jvif@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm7v6f+gamo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143488

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> The original argument if I understood it correctly was that there 
> could be only ONE evil in the story and that is Voldemort. I am not 
> sure why this necessarily could be true.

Whiz:
Voldemort and his megalomania are decidedly evil.  That's undeniable.
 But there is a subplot running through the series about racism and
intolerance, and this is where I see adherants to Slytherin's old
"purification of the race" agenda still active.  Some, like Fudge
through GoF, are working with Dumbledore against their common enemy,
Voldemort.  Others, like Snape, are playing both sides against the
middle, trying to get Dumbledore and Voldemort to kill each other off
preferably, or use Dumbledore to get rid of Voldemort so they can
concentrate on bloodtraitors and muggleborns.  But this is not to take
anything away from Voldemort, because if he prevails, everybody loses.






From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 21:49:15 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:49:15 -0000
Subject: SNAPE - is he actually bad?
In-Reply-To: <dm7q10+9ank@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm80sr+ndu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143489

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "widgetsparky"
<widgetsparky at h...> wrote:
>
> An issue which runs through all of the books and one which im sure 
> gets everyone thinking. Does anyone else feel as i do that he is still 
> on the side of the Order? My reasons for this are:
> 
> Snape is trusted by Dumbledore - not made apparent why but im sure it 
> will. Dumbledore can make mistakes but not one that huge.
> The Unbreakable Bond meant that it was either Snape or Dumbledore 
> who would have to die, as if Malfoy was harmed Snape would die. Maybe 
> Dumbledore though that Snape is more important than himself. He also
believed 
> that Harry is more important than himself.
> 
> 
> 
> what you reckon???
> 
> Widget

Whiz:
I believe that Snape is evil and trying to eliminate both Voldemort
and Dumbledore.  Dumbledore does trust Snape, and now that we've seen
the Unbreakable Vow, we may have a clue why.  As for Voldemort, once a
DE always a DE.  There's no getting out of that club, so Snape has to
play his hand very carefully, especially since other DEs, like members
of the Order, are suspicious of his loyalty.

The subplot about racism and Slytherin's purification of the race
agenda seems to me to be Snape's part in the story.

>







From va32h at comcast.net  Fri Nov 25 22:41:17 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:41:17 -0000
Subject: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
In-Reply-To: <dm7p42+uo5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm83ud+csu7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143490

Quick_silver71  wrote:

> How does Snape spy?
 
*Snip* 
 
>The actions of the Order is book 5/6 seem to be 
>based more on Dumbledore's assumptions about Voldemort's plans 
>then any inside information. 

va32h: 

It is possible that Dumbledore is masking Snape's information as his 
(DD's) own assumptions. 

Dumbledore has always seemed especially protective of Snape's role 
in the Order, and particularly in terms of what he (DD) tells Harry. 
Harry's instinctive dislike of Snape would make him discount any 
information attributed to Snape. Look how horrified Harry was at the 
revelation that Snape was the Half Blood Prince. 

I also think that Snape passes false information to the Voldemort 
camp. His speech to Bella in the "Spinner's End" chapter shows this -
 claiming Dumbledore has been weakened (which I just don't believe) 
and that Harry is merely a sub-par wizard with talented friends 
(which Snape probably desperately wants to believe, but which is 
also not true.)

quick_silver:
> In conclusion: I personally believe that Snape is good (as much as 
> he troubles me) but I don't believe that his purpose in the story 
>is as much to provide information to the Order or Harry as it is to 
> remind them that there are human being on the other side. Snape 
(and also Draco) are a lesson to Harry that he must remember his 
>mercy (and remember the limits of his mercy).

va32h: 

I agree. Snape is more important to the themes of the books, less 
important to the plot. If Snape is ultimately good, Snape and Harry 
are both going to have to learn to put aside personal dislike for 
the greater good. (It will be a sad commentary on Snape if 17 year 
old Harry and pushing-40 Snape end up learning this lesson 
together). 

Sirius said it plainly - the world isn't divided into good people 
and Death Eaters. There are plenty of good guys with horrible 
qualities, and bad guys with redeeming ones. 

va32h










From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 26 01:24:02 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 02:24:02 +0100
Subject: SNAPE - is he actually bad?
References: <dm80sr+ndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013901c5f228$169cde00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143491

whizbang wrote:
> I believe that Snape is evil and trying to eliminate both Voldemort
> and Dumbledore.
snip
> The subplot about racism and Slytherin's purification of the race
> agenda seems to me to be Snape's part in the story.

Miles: 
I still do not see the point, the internal logic. Snape is not a
pureblood. We did not see any sign, that he is on the side of the wizard
racists. No surprise, because his mother would be what e.g. the Blacks would
have called a bloodtraitor. There is not a single remark of Snape's
concerning "mudbloods", pure bloods or else. And being Head of Slytherin
does not meen, that Snape is a racist - we know it at the latest since we
came to knew Slughorn.
But you really have a problem, when the central motivation for Snape in your
theory is not supported by any canon information, and beyond it is not in
the personal interest of Snape. You are building up all the theory and all
of your daring interpretation of canon onto this assumption. IMHO this
means, that you build on sand.

But even if Snape would be successful in getting rid both of DD and LV -
what would he have won? I do not know what - but for sure no triumph of
purebloods. As far as we can see, wizard racism is far away from being
mainstream in the wizarding world. Snape would have to continue his crusade
and getting rid of at least the entire Ministry...

Miles






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 02:23:40 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 02:23:40 -0000
Subject: SNAPE - is he actually bad?
In-Reply-To: <dm80sr+ndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm8gvc+6hev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143492

> Whiz:
> I believe that Snape is evil and trying to eliminate both Voldemort
and Dumbledore.  Dumbledore does trust Snape, and now that we've seen
the Unbreakable Vow, we may have a clue why.  As for Voldemort, once a
DE always a DE.  There's no getting out of that club, so Snape has to
play his hand very carefully, especially since other DEs, like members
of the Order, are suspicious of his loyalty.
> 
> The subplot about racism and Slytherin's purification of the race
> agenda seems to me to be Snape's part in the story.

Carol responds:
I agree that Snape has to play his hand carefully and that he's not a
true supporter of Voldemort, but that's all I agree with. Can you
provide any evidence, aside from the one instance when he calls Lily a
"Mudblood" (as a humiliated teenage boy under duress) when he's shown
any inclination to uphold pureblood values? Yes, he's a Slytherin, but
he's a half-blood, and his treatment of Neville (an inept pureblood),
Harry (a supposedly mediocre halfblood), Ron (an ordinary pureblood),
and Hermione (a Muggleborn know-it-all) has more to do with their
being in Gryffindor and with their respective personalities than with
their blood status. Hagrid, oddly enough, labels people as "Squib" or
"Muggle." Phineas Nigelus labels Mundungus Fletcher as a half-blood.
But I can't think of a single instance when Snape does anything
similar, unless you count "How should I know how a werewolf thinks?"
(PoA, quoted from memory). Can you cite some canon to support your
position?

Also, I don't see how the Unbreakable Vow gives us a clue as to why
Dumbledore trusts Snape. Can you clarify, please?

Carol, who sees no evidence that Snape intends to seek power for himself






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 26 01:59:06 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 02:59:06 +0100
Subject: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
References: <dm7p42+uo5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <015201c5f22c$fcfd7900$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143493

quick_silver71 wrote:
> How does Snape spy?
> Quick_Silver's idea: Snape's mission has never been about getting
> information from Voldemort or his followers. (snip) Snape's
> main mission was to rescue/advise fellow DE's that wanted to leave
> Voldemort's camp.
snip
> First: Lupin and Hagrid both function as spies among two enemy
> groups, the werewolves and the giants

Miles: 
First: thank you for your theory. It think it is well founded as far
as it concerns what Snape is *not*. And I think that the idea of putting
Snape into a row with Hagrid and Lupin, all with the same pattern of action,
is quite good. I would not find a real counter-argument - maybe only, that
Hagrid and Lupin went to the giants/werewolves, whereas Snape ist not among
Deatheaters any time. But this does not touch the core of your idea.

My idea of Snape's task is different - and it is in the line of the end of
HBP:
Snape is to be Harry's helper near Voldemort, the one to help him dealing
with Nagini before he has to face Voldemort in the end. And we can be quite
sure, that Harry will need help in the end, not only from his friends.
This assumption would explain, why DDs would see Snape's life as more
valuable than his own.

But maybe it's not necessary to talk of your and my idea as either - or.
Both do not contradict each other. Maybe we could meet in the middle - you
describe one of Snape's main tasks in the years until the beginning of
Harry's 6th year at Hogwarts, whereas his role changes when it became clear
to Dumbledore, that one of them would have to die.

Miles






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Fri Nov 25 23:36:51 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:36:51 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm7i12+2r0r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm876j+hf71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143494


Colebiancardi:
<SNIP>

However, Alla wrote that Snape may aim higher than the
> everyday evil and I must use the same argument back. Voldemort is 
the
> Supreme Evil in this story, not Snape. So, while I can concede, but
> not agree, that Snape could be evil with a small *e* and could help
> Voldemort, I cannot concede that his importance at being evil would
> surpass Voldy's. Just as I don't believe that Snape could ever
> surpass Harry in the hero mode and the focus of the story.

Lupinlore:
Well, I don't think Alla is saying that is what will happen.  In 
fact, I think she's saying she doesn't believe it will.  She is 
simply saying that it would not be beyond the bounds of 
possibility.  And I think it's fairly obvious, considering who 
killed Dumbledore, that it ISN'T beyond the realm of the possible.


Colebiancardi: 
> The end game of this series is Harry & Voldemort, not Harry & 
Snape,
> not Snape & Voldemort, not even Dumbledore, Harry, Snape & Voldy.
> 
> As far as destructive teenager grudges, I don't think that means 
that
> one who cannot let go turn will turn that person into *true* evil.


Lupinlore:
Will the end game be Harry and Voldemort?  I'm not completely 
certain it will be.  After all, it is very hard to take Voldy 
seriously.  The man is such a cartoon!  And so VERY incompetent 
besides.  I mean, he really should read the Dark Lord's Handbook and 
get a few pointers.

With regard to teenage grudges, I think that is exactly what Alla 
means when she says that JKR might be writing about many different 
kinds of evil.  What is "true" evil, anyway?  The kind that leads 
you to spending your life with the features of a snake in evil 
overlord mode?  In that case, it is a cartoon concept and not to be 
taken very seriously.  Is it a more historical kind of evil, as 
represented by Lucius Malfoy who might have made a very good 
supporter of Hitler?  Is it some other kind of evil?  Or, as I think 
JKR means, are there many different kinds of true evil?

I have never understood why people in the DDM!Snape camp are so very 
insistent that Snape NOT be blamed or punished for his grudges and 
vengeful behavior, but insist that Harry must forgive Snape  in 
order to be one of the good guys.  Seems like doublethink to me.


Lupinlore










From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 26 02:35:48 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:35:48 +0100
Subject: Snape isn't evil
References: <dm6kvg+ngcf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <015c01c5f232$1d02da60$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143495

ornadv wrote:
> If DD did it, it would be such an irresponsible reckless thing to
> do! I mean the least thing to do, would have been to ask the Potters
> and Longbottoms , if they agreed to being endangered this way.

Miles:
 They couldn't, because neither Harry nor Neville was born then.
I don't think that Dumbledore anticipated Voldemort attacking a baby. But he
is responsible for the attack, if he really passed the prophecy to Voldemort
(through Snape).

ornadv wrote:
> Voldemort doesn't even know there is a prophecy - so why put him on
> track of anybody.

Miles:
 Because we know from the prophecy, that the only way to create the
Chosen One is certain action taken by Voldemort. He has to "mark him as his
equal". If he would not, the Chosen One could not overcome Voldemort. To
fulfill the prophecy it is necessary that Voldemort knows about it.

ornadv wrote:
> I offered another explanation: Trelawney's prophecy was interrupted
> in the middle, when Snape got caught. She immediately resumed the
> prophecy, when Snape wasn't anymore there.

Miles:
 I do not like this explanation very much. I must admit, that we do
not know much about what state of mind we see when a prophecy is made. But I
really doubt, that it can be interrupted and resumed some moments later.
Particularly when we deal with a "seer" like Trelawny, who made two
prophecys in her lifetime.

ornadv wrote:
> And another question, which occurred to me - why didn't Voldemort
> try to kidnap Trelawney then and there to extract the prophecy from
> her?

Miles: 
Why should he? He only learnt about a second part of the prophecy he
didn't know... umph, don't know exactly when, in the course of GoF or OotP?
Before he didn't know about Trelawny being important for him.
We can only speculate, if the prophecy is somewhere hidden in Trelawny's
memory. But to kidnap her would have been very difficult. She seems to stay
at Hogwarts all the time, and Hogwarts *is* a very safe place, as we know.

Miles






From the_bad_gene at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 25 23:19:03 2005
From: the_bad_gene at yahoo.com (Tim Cuthbertson)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SNAPE - is he actually bad?
In-Reply-To: <dm80sr+ndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051125231903.32985.qmail@web50704.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143496

Widget wrote:

> Snape is trusted by Dumbledore - not made apparent why but im sure 
> it will. Dumbledore can make mistakes but not one that huge.
> The Unbreakable Bond meant that it was either Snape or Dumbledore 
> who would have to die, as if Malfoy was harmed Snape would die. 
> Maybe Dumbledore though that Snape is more important than himself. 
> He also believed that Harry is more important than himself.

Whiz wrote:

> I believe that Snape is evil and trying to eliminate both Voldemort
> and Dumbledore.  Dumbledore does trust Snape, and now that we've 
> seen the Unbreakable Vow, we may have a clue why.  As for 
> Voldemort, once a DE always a DE.  There's no getting out of that 
> club, so Snape has to play his hand very carefully, especially 
> since other DEs, like members of the Order, are suspicious of his 
> loyalty.



the_bad_gene:

I must admit, that I also think there is more to Snape that the pure evil that he has just shown. But, what worries me more is that when Dumbeldore saw Snape (for what was to be the final time). Dumbeldores voice was "pleading".....
   
  For a wizard so clever, I think that D must have known that there was a chance that Snape would have to do what he did. But for which reason did he do it?
   
  What I mean by this, is that perhaps Snape is at a cross roads and he can either go fully to the dark side or use his position (which upon the murder of D must be as high as you get with Voldie's books) to really get close and help destroy the dark lord.
   
  Just a thought.......

the_bad_gene






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 26 02:43:58 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:43:58 +0100
Subject: Lunatic side of Fake! Moody WAS Re: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
References: <dm83ud+csu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016c01c5f233$40bded90$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143497

va32h wrote:
> Sirius said it plainly - the world isn't divided into good people
> and Death Eaters. There are plenty of good guys with horrible
> qualities, and bad guys with redeeming ones.

Miles: 
Just one of the latter - Fake!Moody in the scene he punishes Draco
for attacking Harry from the back. He then really seems to be furious, even
he takes the "wrong" side considering he is a Deatheater. Crouch jr is a
maniac, and definitely one of the bad guys, but he is rather lunatic than
altogether evil.

Miles






From xmilesx at gmx.de  Sat Nov 26 03:08:34 2005
From: xmilesx at gmx.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:08:34 +0100
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
References: <dm876j+hf71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <017801c5f236$b083a360$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143498

lupinlore wrote:
> I have never understood why people in the DDM!Snape camp are so very
> insistent that Snape NOT be blamed or punished for his grudges and
> vengeful behavior, but insist that Harry must forgive Snape  in
> order to be one of the good guys.  Seems like doublethink to me.

Miles: 
What kind of justice? Poetic? ;) SCNR
But - Snape *is* punished, if he is DDM. He killed Dumbledore! Dumbledore,
the only man that trusted him out of true belief. And he will be the one who
killed the greatest wizard of his time. He will never return to Hogwarts. He
will be even more an outsider than ever before.
You really think he has not to pay a very high price? I do.

Miles






From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Sat Nov 26 04:16:41 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:16:41 -0000
Subject: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
In-Reply-To: <015201c5f22c$fcfd7900$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dm8nj9+10mo6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143499

Miles wrote:

> My idea of Snape's task is different - and it is in the line of 
the end of HBP:
> Snape is to be Harry's helper near Voldemort, the one to help him 
> dealing with Nagini before he has to face Voldemort in the end. 
> And we can be quite sure, that Harry will need help in the end, 
> not only from his friends.
> This assumption would explain, why DDs would see Snape's life as 
> more valuable than his own.


 
I've heard that idea a fair bit but I'm not a big fan of it...I 
personally want to see Harry do some things on his own (I mean truly 
on his own...none of this Trio business). 

I also think that Draco has a role to play...Snape and Draco are 
virtually bound together. If one falls so does the other. I also 
dislike the idea of a "master plan by Dumbledore" because, IMO, 
Dumbledore has found the one person who can match him in that 
ability: Voldemort.

I actually prefer the idea of Dumbledore thinking that he and Snape 
has a plan and then being caught off guard by Voldemort. It forces 
two characters: Harry and Snape to react without the influence of 
Dumbledore for the first time. That's JMO but I'm eager to see Snape 
without Dumbledore.

Snape has to prove that he can act without Dumbledore constantly 
looking over his shoulder...he has to prove that he can act worth of 
Dumbledore's memory. 

Quick_Silver (It's time like the end of HBP were I wish Sirius Black 
was alive
he was crazy but he was crazy with a plan)









From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov 26 03:50:14 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:50:14 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lunatic side of Fake! Moody WAS Re: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
References: <dm83ud+csu7@eGroups.com> <016c01c5f233$40bded90$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <015401c5f23c$83222620$8e60400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143500

> Miles:
> Just one of the latter - Fake!Moody in the scene he punishes Draco
> for attacking Harry from the back. He then really seems to be furious, 
> even
> he takes the "wrong" side considering he is a Deatheater. Crouch jr is a
> maniac, and definitely one of the bad guys, but he is rather lunatic than
> altogether evil.

Magpie:

But remember, too, that he hates Death Eaters who went free just as much as 
Moody does, just for different reasons--I wouldn't be surprised if he had 
bad experiences with being hit from behind, too, even though he himself is 
plotting his own underhanded attack on Harry.  Crouch hates Lucius for the 
same reason as Moody, but for his own very different reasons reasons. 
Crouch is often able to indulge his own grudges while looking like a good 
guy.

I love Crouch, Jr.:-)

-m 





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 04:42:14 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:42:14 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm876j+hf71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm8p36+l646@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143501


> Lupinlore:

> I have never understood why people in the DDM!Snape camp are so very 
> insistent that Snape NOT be blamed or punished for his grudges and 
> vengeful behavior, but insist that Harry must forgive Snape  in 
> order to be one of the good guys.  Seems like doublethink to me.
> 
zgirnius:
Yes, but who says Harry should be punished? I don't recall seeing such a post. The general 
feeling in the DDM camp seems to be that the two of them will need to work together. As 
things stand, I suppose it could be argued BOTH characters would consider this to be a 
punishment. ;o)









From muellem at bc.edu  Sat Nov 26 05:09:36 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:09:36 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm8p36+l646@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm8qmg+job5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143503

Ha! It is now past midnight and I can post again :-) Yeah!! Mixing two
topics that started out as one, but branched off into two different
ones. I had all evening to do this
..


-- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" <whizbang121 at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
> wrote:
>
> > well, that is one way to look at it. But it is an interpretation,
> > not canon that actually stated that Snape knew about Barty Jr or was
> > helping him.
>
> Whiz:
> It's not so much interpretation as looking at the scene from Snape's
 PoV.

Colebiancardi: And that is still interpretation. We don't know
Snape's POV. I could state that Snape's POV is that he is terrified
of Mad-Eye. That he doesn't know it is really Barty Jr and that we do
know that the real Mad-Eye is paranoid ? doesn't trust anyone any more
? sees dark wizards everywhere(p 162 GoF Am Ed Hardcover). Moody has
become unpredictable at Hogwarts ? using Transfiguration as a
punishment for Draco. In the staircase scene, we find out that
Moody has searched Snape's office, obviously thinking that Snape is
still into dark magics. Fake!Moody also tells Snape that he doesn't
trust him, doesn't believe, as DD does, in second chances ? "I say
there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never com
off, you know?" p. 472

It is at this time Snape grabbed his own forearm, which has the Dark
Mark on it (we don't know it yet, of course). However, my
interpretation of the scene, from Snape's POV, is that he is afraid of
Moody, he knows Moody wants any excuse to get him, as Snape was a DE ?
and Snape knows that Moody knows. Snape's voice thoughout the scene
is described as coldly, dangerous,, hissing, snarling, and finally of
forced calm. He states his words thru clenched teeth, his nerves are
plainly visible (the vein flickering horribly on Snape's greasy temple
which pulsates more rapidly as he gets upset, his face going red)

This is a showdown between a person that Snape believes to be the real
deal, IMHO, an ex-Auror who put away more DeathEaters than any other.
Snape cannot afford to have Moody bring trumped up charges against
him, as even DD may not be able to get him out of this one. Snape
doesn't believe that DD gave Moody permission to search Snape's
office. Moody doesn't deny this.

So, you have your interpretation of the scene from your vision of
Snape's POV and I have mine.


> colebiancardi:
> My interpretation of those scenes, starting with the
> > staircase showdown, was that Snape was afraid of Mad-Eye, because
> > Mad-Eye/Jr made threats about getting DE's who got away. Also, at
> > this time we didn't know Snape was an ex-DE who was spying for DD. It
> > could have been that Snape didn't want Mad-Eye poking around in his
> > head and that Snape has had his office searched by Mad-Eye/Jr against
> > Snape's wishes.
> >
> > The second scene outside of DD's office - I just chalked that up to
> > Snape being, well, Snape. He has no love for Harry. Or maybe he knew
> > that DD was coming down and wanted to torment Harry a bit. Not saying
> > it is right that Snape does this, but that is how I viewed it.
>
> Whiz:
> And that is Harry's PoV, and we all know that Harry is so dreadfully
> uninformed about nearly everything that his PoV is hopelessly limited
> by the little information he does have. Remember, Snape grabbed the
> Dark Mark on his arm and Harry had no idea why. At that point,
 neither did we, but we discovered the reason later on.

Yes, I will agree that Harry's POV is hopeless limited, which is why I
am in the DDM!Snape camp.

>
> colebiancardi:
> > The Foe-Glass to me tells me that Snape is not helping Barty. That is
> > canon -
> > "Oh that's my Foe-Glass. See them out there, skulking around? I'm
> > not really in trouble until I see the whites of their eyes". p 343 Am
> > Ed Hardcover GoF
> >
> > "Moody was thrown backward onto the office floor. Harry, still
> > starting at the place where Moody's face had been, saw Albus
> > Dumbledore, Professor Snape and Professor McGonagall looking back at
> > him out of the Foe-Glass". p. 679 GoF
>
> Whiz:
> Why would you think this means that Snape did not help BartyJr? If he
> helped Crouch/Moody against his will while plotting against him,
> wouldn't he show up in the foe glass? Remember, Barty hates a DE that
> got away, and Snape would like to do just that.
> But, BartyJr answers to Vodle, and Snape can't take the chance that
> BartyJr will carry tales of his disloyalty back to the DL. He may not
> want to be a DE, but Snape still has that nasty tattoo on his arm.
>

colebiancardi: First off, you didn't state that Snape was helping
Barty Jr against Snape's will. You mentioned that Snape KNEW that
Moody was really Barty Jr and that he was helping him. I am a little
confused by your argument now about Snape would want to get away, when
he knows Voldemort is coming. He has known it a long time and has
told DD about it, with his Dark Mark getting clearer. So, is Snape
working for Voldemort or not? Again, this is interpretation on your
part. It is not canon that is everywhere.

The Foe Glass scene is the best example we have that Snape is not
helping Jr. Otherwise, one could also argue that McGonagall or
Dumbledore could have been helping Jr, as well. Which we know they
did not.


> colebiancardi:
> > but isn't Snape's own life in danger once all the muggleborns &
> > half-bloods are gone - there are no half-breeds, they are called
> > half-bloods.
>
> Whiz:
>Hagrid, Fleur and Flitwick are all halfbreeds.

Colebiancardi: Ok, I thought you were referring to half-breeds as
something else. Sure, there are half-breeds, but it doesn't seem to
be a common thing in the WW. Nothing is said about eliminating
half-breeds, to my recollection. Just muggle-borns & half-bloods.
There is a hatred towards half-breeds, but Voldemort has not declared
war on them yet.

> Why would Snape's life be in danger? Purebloods tolerate half bloods.
> As Hermione points out, the DEs would be happy to have Ron or Harry,
> it's muggleborns like her they want to eliminate.

Colebiancardi: Ron is a pureblood, so that doesn't count. Yes,
purebloods might tolerate half-bloods to get what they want, eliminate
muggle-borns, but after that? When does it stop? Half-bloods are
born from a muggle & a wizard. Just like Hitler wanted to wipe out
the Jews, they had degrees of how much Jewish blood was acceptable and
even at that, the punishment of being just a little bit Jewish was
very harsh.

Snape should worry.


>
> colebiancardi:
> > Remember, many in the wizarding community thought that LV was on the
> > right track until LV got it into his head that non-purebloods
> > should be destroyed.
>
> Whiz: ??????
>
> QUOTE OotP page 6:
> "No, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right idea,
> they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, getting rid
> of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge. They weren't alone,
> either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his
> true colours, who thought he had the right idea about things... they
> got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power,
> though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero
> for joining up at first."
>
> They thought that Voldemort had the right idea when he did want to
> purify the race. They changed their minds when they realized he
> wanted power for himself.
>
colebiancardi: That is the quote I was looking for. No, they didn't
change their minds because Voldy wanted power for himself ? I mean,
what did they think, when he calls himself LORD Voldemort? No, the
quote is and you did quote it ? They got cold feet when they saw what
he was prepared TO DO TO GET POWER, not that they got cold feet when
they saw he wanted power. See, even the Germans who may have agreed
with Hilter about the Jews, about moving them away into ghettos and
separating them into camps, if THEY knew that Hitler was planning to
exterminate all the Jews, I doubt they would have followed him. And I
am talking about the civilians, of course. The WW who agreed with
Voldemort about the purification of their race, probably didn't want
muggle-borns OR half-bloods ? as the only way you can have a
half-blood is by having a child with a muggle. They didn't want the
races to intermingle. So, purification and extermination are two
different things. Voldemort's true colors were that he wasn't content
in separating the 2 worlds ? he wanted to eliminate one of the worlds
completely.


>
> colebiancardi:
> > > I'll take it a step further. I believe that Snape's animagus is an
> > > insect, a buzzing insect to be precise. And I'm toying with the
idea
> > > that he's Draco's godfather, though I'm fuzzy on that one.
> >
> > what does Snape's animagus have to do with Snape helping Barty Jr?
> > And many people have stated they believe that Snape's animagus is also
> > an insect - a bee, in fact. To show loyality to DD.
>
> Whiz:
> QUOTE PoA, ch 16:
> 'Harry was now the only person left to be tested. He settled himself
> on the floor with his back against the wall, listening to a fly
> buzzing in the sunny window, his mind across the grounds with Hagrid.'
>
> This was immediately before Trelawney gave Harry her second prophesy.
>

colebiancardi: and so? This was in June ? "the days became cloudless
& sultry and all anybody felt like doing was strolling onto the
grounds and flopping down on the grass with several pints of iced
pumpkin juice, perhaps playing a casual game of Gobstones or watching
the giant squid propel itself dreamily across the surface of the lake"
p 314 PoA Am Hardcover edition. Same chapter as yours. It is hot,
sultry, and springtime ? bugs do appear in the springtime. As Snape
is a professor and this is final exam time, don't you think he
probably is testing his own classes? I highly doubt that is Snape.
But that is your interpretation of the scene.

> QUOTE OotP ch 31
> 'It was several seconds before it occurred to him that he had not
> taken in a word of it; there was a wasp buzzing distractingly against
> one of the high windows. Slowly, tortuously, he at last began to write
> an answer.'

> This was immediately before Harry, unable to think straight, slipped
> into the corridor dream. I'm suggesting that Snape is responsible for
> both. And Snape gives a good explanation of the confundus charm and
> it's effects at the end of PoA.

Colebiancardi: Again, with the bugs! It is June again, hot, time
for finals, in this case O.W.L.S for Harry. Don't you have bugs in
June? The problem with your "bug is Snape" theory is that there are
two different bugs ? one being a fly and the other a wasp. Totally
different. Is there any canon that a wizard animagus can turn into
different animals? Hermione would have told us this one, I am sure :-)

Also, the final he was taking was a) with three hours of sleep (p.724
OotP Am Ed Hardcover), and b) History of Magic. I doubt that Harry
needs to be confunded by any wizard in this course, as Harry is
hopeless in it as it is. The corridor dream is not due to Snape, but
to Voldemort and Harry's connection.


>
> > Purebloods like the Malfoys would never have a half-blood like Snape
> > be in any way, shape or form, connected somehow in the family. A
> > godfather's role is to help raise the child if the parents die or to
> > offer spiritual advise. The Malfoys use Snape and he uses them back.
> > I doubt think Snape is *that* close to the Malfoys at all.
>
> Whiz:
> The books suggest otherwise. Narcissa calls Snape, Lucius good
> friend. And we know nothing about Snape's mother or her connections
> in the magical world.

Colebiancardi: Yes, she does call him that ? and why? Because she
WANTS something from him. You don't go and insult a person whom you
are trying to get help from? And in this case, the request can kill
Snape if he doesn't follow through. Snape has been described as
Lucius's lapdog, by Sirius. Not a very positive description of a
"good friend". Narcissa is buttering Snape up, to get him to help
her. And what a "good friend" the Malfoys are ? if Snape can't do
Draco's deed, if Draco fails, Snape will die. Oh yeah, I want good
friends like that. Not :-) The books give a mixed reaction to Snape's
role with the Malfoys.

We don't know much about Eileen, that is true. But, she could not
have been a big Voldemort supporter, as a) she married a muggle and b)
we don't hear her name as a DE.

>
> colebiancardi:
> > I think Snape is the go-to guy for them, but a godfather?
>
> Whiz:
> Snape is an extrememly powerful wizard, well versed in the Dark Arts
> and with unknown familial connections. Now if you were a dark wizard
 choosing a godfather for your child .....


colebiancardi: Not with the Malfoy's pureblood mania. Can't see it.

> >
> > colebiancardi
> > (interpretation of scenes is not canon. Otherwise, all my bright
> > ideas could be called canon as well!!)
>
> Whiz: I would argue that extrapolation is not canon. But I'm not sure
> that looking at scenes from a different point of view is noncanonical.
> I didn't change a word or extrapolate any possibilities. I merely
> looked at the scene on the stairs from the point of view of someone
> with more backstory and information than Harry had at that time.
>

I would argue that unless it is right there in print, that it is
noncanoncial. You didn't change a word, but you came to conclusions
that were YOUR interpretation of the scene. Flys, wasps = Snape?
That is major guesswork. Which we all do. But it is your opinion and
it is not canon. You don't know Snape's POV and you don't know the
backstory ? if you did, we all would and there would be no guesswork,
which is what JKR wants. I don't mind people's guesswork &
interpretations ? I do it and I enjoy it when others do it as well.
But to state it is canon & all around? That is stretching it a bit,
don't you think?


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:



>colebiancardi:The reason why Harry went after Snape was pure emotion
and fantasy:
> > "Terror tore at Harry's heart...He had to get to Dumbledore and he
> had
> > to catch Snape....Somehow the two things were linked...He could
> > reverse what had happened if he had them both together...Dumbledore
> > could not have died..." HBP, p. 598
>
> Alla:
>
> Erm... I think that it does not matter whether Harry's hatred of
> Snape goes way back. In fact I don't think it goes THAT back. Before
> end of OOP I don't remember Harry saying that he ever HATED Snape,
> but of course he hated Snape during HBP, no argument from me.
>
> I cannot agree that ANY decent person after witnessing the murder of
> his beloved mentor( Of course it is just my interpretation) right in
> front of his eyes can do anything else but to try and catch the
> murderer. In fact, if Harry started rationalizing his actions , I
> would think that there is something very, very wrong with him.
>

colebiancardi: there is a difference between rationalizing ones
actions and having a PLAN. Why didn't Harry ask for help from Ernie?
Why did he have to "go it alone" with Snape? If Harry used half of
his brain, I would think that he was finally growing up to be the
wizard he should be. Harry's emotions are so off-the-charts at this
time ? he actually thinks that getting Snape will bring DD back ? I am
worried about that. Harry has to start thinking things through. He
was on the right track with Draco in this book; I do hope he can grow
further into adulthood and start thinking. Hermione isn't always
going to be there for him.

>
>
> Colebiancardi:
> > Harry is not thinking clearly at this point. Not that I blame him.
> > However, what happened on the tower added to the years of hatred &
> > mistrust Harry has felt towards Snape, even though Dumbledore told
> him
> > otherwise. There was nothing to be gained by catching & killing
> Snape
> > other than to *avenge* the death of Dumbledore, based on what Harry
> > saw on the tower.
>
> Alla:
>
> Well, as I said above to me it would be very weird if Harry started
> to think what is to be GAINED by catching Snape at that moment. Of
> course it added to the years of hatred and mistrust, Snape just
> killed Dumbledore.
>

colebiancardi: No, I am not asking if Harry should think that. Of
course not. But Harry should think gee, what if I die going after 4
DE's(one who is a werewolf), Draco & Snape? What are the odds on my
surviving THAT one? Snape "killed" DD, but was it on DD's orders?
Are you stating that doesn't matter at all, if that is what it turns
out to be? Or maybe Snape didn't kill DD, that he released him from
whatever was keeping DD alive the whole year ? as that is my
interpretation with the hand injury and the general weakness of DD and
his impatience with Harry about Slughorn's memory. I believe that DD
knew he was out of time. And so did Snape.
>
> Colebiancardi:
> > Harry is making the case against Snape not by facts, but by twisting
> > the words of Dumbledore to make his case against Snape. Even if I
> > believed in ESE!Snape, I would say that is dishonest of Harry and he
> > will do anything to further his grudge and try to make others follow
> > him down this path. I think that even you would agree that Harry's
> > grudge against Snape begins a lot earlier than that night on the
> > tower.
>
> Alla:
>
> Sorry, I disagree. Harry makes the case against Snape by facts and
> the facts are he just witnessed him killing Headmaster. Could it be
> that Harry has limited evidence and he would have to reevaluate his
> judgment later? Of course, but right now with the evidence he has, I
> completely disagree that Harry is acting to further his "grudge",
> which I even disagree should be called so.

Colebiancardi: Please don't mix what I posted about the reason why
Snape was trusted by DD by what Harry witnessed in the tower. I
specifically posted that Harry FURTHERED his grudge by misstating what
Dumbledore told him about Snape to the rest of the staff in that
scene. The staff was questioning why did Dumbledore trust Snape so
explicitly ? Harry was quick to jump on board with his version, which
was a twisted rendition of what DD told him. And everyone was in
disbelief that DD believed that excuse. Harry, although he doesn't do
this on purpose, has made Dumbledore look like a fool. Harry is
still in overdrive at this moment, "who wanted every detail of Snape's
duplicity and infamy, feverishly collecting more reasons to hate him,
to swear vengance" p. 617 HBP Am Ed Hardcover. This scene is not
right after DD has died, Harry has had time to give chase to Snape, go
and view DD's body, read the RAB note, see Bill and then the staff
comes in. That quote tells me that Harry wants more & more fuel to
add to his fire, his grudge ? he wants to further it with more & more
details ? from other's POV, of course.

And finally,
>>Lupinlore wrote:
>>I have never understood why people in the DDM!Snape camp are so very
>>insistent that Snape NOT be blamed or punished for his grudges and
>>vengeful behavior, but insist that Harry must forgive Snape in
>>order to be one of the good guys. Seems like doublethink to me.

Colebiancardi: I think you are coming from this on the assumption that
Snape is evil ? and I doubt that I or any other DDM!Snape believers
have ever stated that Harry must forgive Snape if Snape is truly evil.
If Snape isn't evil, why would you want Harry to kill him or not
understand what happened? Snape not be blamed or punished for his
grudges or vengeful behavior ? I think he has been punished ? look at
where he ended up at ? at Hogwarts, teaching a bunch of dunderheads.
Snape's grudges were also Sirius's grudges ? I don't remember anyone
stating Sirius needed to let go of his grudge towards Snape. Snape
has a lot of issues dealing with certain students, but if that was
something that DD didn't want the students to be exposed to, he would
not have hired Snape in as a teacher. DD wanted the kids to be
exposed to people like Snape ? character building, perhaps? I said
that tongue in cheek, as I cannot defend Snape's behavior towards
Neville. His behavior towards Harry I can understand, but I don't
like it. Other than that and a rude comment or two to Hermione, has
Snape ever been nasty to other students? You would think with Fred &
George in Snape's class, they would be in trouble all the time with
him, yet we don't really see that happening. So, Snape's behavior
is limited to a few chosen students, which doesn't excuse him, but it
isn't as if he is on the warpath with the student population or something.

I believe Snape will die in book 7. What I have stated is that
Harry should concentrate on getting rid of Voldemort ? he should not
continue with this blind hatred of Snape. Harry won't win on that
emotion. If Snape is truly evil & still alive at the end, then
Harry can go for him. Or if Snape gets in the way before Voldemort's
fall, Harry can get rid of him. But Harry should not pour any more
emotional reasons into Snape ? it is a major detraction from his true
goal ? the one that DD wanted to him to do ? remember? Harry is way
too concerned about Snape that the true Evil in the story, which you
think is cartoonish. I don't think Voldy is cartoonish. He is the
perfect villain ? whereas Snape is not the perfect villain; if he was,
you wouldn't have people split down the middle about Snape at this
point & time.

Methinks you are placing all the DDM!Snape's into one category and
that is a tad dishonest.


sorry for the long post, but that is what happens when there is a
3-post a day limit.


Colebiancardi ? ahhh, when is book 7 coming out? LOL.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 05:48:41 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:48:41 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm8qmg+job5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dm8svp+2tci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143505

Colebiancardi wrote:
>
> Ha! It is now past midnight and I can post again :-) Yeah!! 

Alla:

LOL! I was going to go to bed, but decided to post again before I go 
since it is past midnight here too.


> 
> colebiancardi: there is a difference between rationalizing ones
> actions and having a PLAN. Why didn't Harry ask for help from 
Ernie?
> Why did he have to "go it alone" with Snape?

Alla:

Because he did not have time to formulate a plan, maybe? Because not 
even minutes passed since he witnessed Dumbledore's being murdered?




 > colebiancardi: 
No, I am not asking if Harry should think that. Of
> course not. But Harry should think gee, what if I die going after 4
> DE's(one who is a werewolf), Draco & Snape? What are the odds on my
> surviving THAT one? Snape "killed" DD, but was it on DD's orders?
> Are you stating that doesn't matter at all, if that is what it 
turns
> out to be? Or maybe Snape didn't kill DD, that he released him from
> whatever was keeping DD alive the whole year ? as that is my
> interpretation with the hand injury and the general weakness of DD 
and
> his impatience with Harry about Slughorn's memory. I believe that 
DD
> knew he was out of time. And so did Snape.

Alla:

I think this is extremely unrealistic to expect Harry to think what 
if I die at this point,when again VERY short time passed since he 
seen Dumbledore being murdered. I don't think anything else was on 
his mind, I don't think anything else COULD be on his mind. Of 
course, JMO.

Now, if Harry decides to pursue Snape with SAME firceness say in 
three - four months after those events, I MAYBE begin to see your 
point, but to expect sixteen year old to just witness a murder and 
to start thinking that maybe that was all part of the plan, I am not 
even close to understanding your argument. Sorry!


ColebiancardI
<SNIP of the quote that could be read UPTHREAD>:

That quote tells me that Harry wants more & more fuel to
> add to his fire, his grudge ? he wants to further it with more & 
more
> details ? from other's POV, of course.


Alla:

I guess I am not expressing myself clearly again - I just think that 
it is a weak support for the "Harry wants to further his grudge 
against Snape" line of argument to look at ANY " antiSnape" actions 
or thoughts  by Harry right after Dumbledore's murder.

I would say that Harry blaming Snape for Sirius' murder would be a 
stronger support for this argument ( that is of course if Snape did 
not pass any info to Voldemort), but here we have Snape committing 
what at least LOOKS like a crime ( well, I am pretty convinced that 
it was a crime, but I realise that reasonable minds could differ :-
)).

I think that Harry would have had a grudge against ANY person who 
would have killed Dumbledore, regardless of what he felt about such 
person previously . IMO of course.


Colebiancardi:
<SNIP>
>> Snape's grudges were also Sirius's grudges ? I don't remember 
anyone
> stating Sirius needed to let go of his grudge towards Snape. 

Alla:

Plenty of people stated that, actually, myself included, BUT 
regardless of what I think about both characters I think that having 
a nice job as Hogwarts professor is much nicer environment to get 
rid of the grudges if one so desires than twelve years in Azkaban, 
where dementors make you concentrate on your grudges over and over 
again.

In any event, Snape and Sirius are adults and them holding grudges 
is what made me love reading fanfictions about them. :-)



> Colebiancardi ? ahhh, when is book 7 coming out? LOL.
>

Alla:

I think this is the part of your post which I am wholeheartedly 
agree with. :-)

Alla,

who is really going to bed now, really.






From juli17 at aol.com  Sat Nov 26 07:59:39 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 02:59:39 EST
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
Message-ID: <6d.5230a1e0.30b96feb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143507

 

colebiancardi: 
> > I'll take it a step further.  I  believe that Snape's animagus is an
> > insect, a buzzing insect to be  precise.  And I'm toying with the idea
> > that he's Draco's  godfather, though I'm fuzzy on that one.
> 
> what does Snape's  animagus have to do with Snape helping Barty Jr? 
> And many people have  stated they believe that Snape's animagus is also
> an insect - a bee, in  fact.  To show loyality to DD.  
 
Julie: 
I think the speculation has been that Snape's *patronus* may  be a
bee. We have no information that Snape is an animagus, and if  he
is then he's yet another unregistered one. (If he was  registered, then
surely Hermoine wouldn't have left out that juicy fact when  she reported
on the registered Animagi to Harry!)

 


Whiz:
QUOTE  PoA, ch 16:
'Harry was now the only person  left to be tested.  He settled himself
on the floor with his back  against the wall, listening to a fly
buzzing in the sunny window, his mind  across the grounds with Hagrid.'

This was immediately before Trelawney  gave Harry her second prophesy.

QUOTE OotP ch 31
'It was several  seconds before it occurred to him that he had not
taken in a word of it;  there was a wasp buzzing distractingly against
one of the high windows.  Slowly, tortuously, he at last began to write
an answer.'

This was  immediately before Harry, unable to think straight, slipped
into the corridor  dream.  I'm suggesting that Snape is responsible for
both.  And  Snape gives a good explanation of the confundus charm and
it's effects at the  end of PoA.



Julie:
Er, so Snape is a metamorphmagus animagus? Along with his potions
mastery, DarkArts/DADA knowledge, superb Occlumens/Legilimens
ability, and outstanding dueling skills--really, why didn't he just take 
out Voldemort and Dumbledore a long time ago and start ruling the 
WW, as he supposedly so fervently desires? Who could stand up to
all this, really? 
 
Okay, I'm being a bit sardonic, but it seems overkill for Snape to 
be revealed as a surprise Animagus, let alone one who can morph
from insect to insect (besides, if he's an animagus, he should be
a bat!). 
 
Sometimes a fly is just a fly, and a wasp is just a wasp ;-)
 
Julie 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Sat Nov 26 17:28:04 2005
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:28:04 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment
In-Reply-To: <dm2mnb+dgqa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dma5v4+ta69@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143508

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" 
<saraquel_omphale at y...> wrote:
>
> Saraquel:
> I always had the impression that rather than see with his physical 
> eyes, DD sensed people and magic in a 6th sense sort of way (for 
> want of a better expression).  In the cave he used his hands, 
> passing them over the rockface.  


That was my impression too, sensing rather than seeing.  What struck 
me in that scene, since I already knew Dumbledore was going to be 
the one to die, was how vastly more experienced and knowledgeable 
Dumbledore was than Harry or ANYONE ELSE in the WW.  I remember 
thinking, "How can ANYONE fill those shoes?"  DD has no equal, 
there's no way Harry can defeat Voldemort by emulating him.  That 
being said, I can still see Harry having a moment in book 7 when he 
can suddenly "sense" magic also (like Neo in the Matrix -
 "something's different, I can feel them")  

Allie






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 17:40:10 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:40:10 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dlu03q+r9v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dma6lq+j2k0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143509

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> > >>Nora:
> > <snip>
> > And with the revelations about Snape's parentage, the whole 'poor 
> > Snape abused by his father/family/whatever' scenario has started  
> > to sprout at least a few holes. 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> What holes?  This is the first I've heard of holes.

Go away for a week, and see what happens...

I mean that it's a good time to re-examine (and there has been 
postage to these ends) our previous interpretations of the glances 
that Harry got in the Pensieve scene of Snape's 'homelife'.  None of 
us expected Tobias Snape, Muggle, methinks...and that makes the whole 
idea of an abusive father a little more difficult (if still not 
impossible).  Given that Snape comes to school knowing magic and 
mommy is a witch, the idea that her husband is abusing her pops a few 
holes.  I think this is perhaps furthered by the notices in the paper 
of marriage and birth; formality, maybe, but it could also speak to a 
serious match.

Someone else out in the firmament posted the idea that maybe it's 
Tobias who has gotten scared and shocked by something naughty Eileen 
has done, and is shouting in fear and reaction.  That works for me; 
no monopoly on abuse by fathers, after all.

Whatever it turns out as, those glimpses into Snapeykin's past are 
definitely set up with the potential for entertaining misdirection.  
Hence the comment of 'holes'.

-Nora holes up to work and not to answer emails...







From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Nov 26 15:41:43 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:41:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character
 in the series?
In-Reply-To: <017801c5f236$b083a360$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
References: <dm876j+hf71@eGroups.com> <017801c5f236$b083a360$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <43888237.6020400@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143510

Miles wrote:
> But - Snape *is* punished, if he is DDM. He killed Dumbledore! Dumbledore,
> the only man that trusted him out of true belief. And he will be the one who
> killed the greatest wizard of his time. He will never return to Hogwarts. He
> will be even more an outsider than ever before.

Bart:
	Did he kill Dumbledore? Was Dumbledore's hand unhealable because it was 
magically damaged, or was it unhealable because he could no longer heal 
from injuries? From (S/P)S, Chapter 8: "I can teach you how to bottle 
fame, brew glory, even stopper death"

	Now, consider. The title of the 6th book was "Harry Potter and the Half 
Blood Prince." The use of Snape's old textbook and the identity of the 
Half Blood Prince was, frankly, pretty minor as a plot point. Then why 
was it emphasized? Why was it important? (These are not rhetorical 
questions, by the way). A re-reading of Chapter 8, particularly Snape's 
first class, may well be in order, especially since there were other 
references to it in HBP.

	Bart (not Bartholemew, by the way)







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 20:09:46 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:09:46 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm8qmg+job5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmafea+bgsd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143511

Colebiancardi wrote:

> And that is still interpretation. We don't know Snape's POV. I could
state that Snape's POV is that he is terrified of Mad-Eye. That he
doesn't know it is really Barty Jr and that we do know that the real
Mad-Eye is paranoid ? doesn't trust anyone any more ? sees dark
wizards everywhere(p 162 GoF Am Ed Hardcover). Moody has become
unpredictable at Hogwarts ? using Transfiguration as a punishment for
Draco. In the staircase scene, we find out that Moody has searched
Snape's office, obviously thinking that Snape is still into dark
magics. Fake!Moody also tells Snape that he doesn't trust him, doesn't
believe, as DD does, in second chances ? "I say there are spots that
don't come off, Snape. Spots that never com[e] off, you know?" p. 472
> 
> It is at this time Snape grabbed his own forearm, which has the Dark
Mark on it (we don't know it yet, of course). However, my
interpretation of the scene, from Snape's POV, is that he is afraid of
Moody, he knows Moody wants any excuse to get him, as Snape was a DE ?
and Snape knows that Moody knows. Snape's voice thoughout the scene is
described as coldly, dangerous, hissing, snarling, and finally of
forced calm. He states his words thru clenched teeth, his nerves are
plainly visible (the vein flickering horribly on Snape's greasy temple
> which pulsates more rapidly as he gets upset, his face going red)
> 
> This is a showdown between a person that Snape believes to be the
real deal, IMHO, an ex-Auror who put away more DeathEaters than any
other. Snape cannot afford to have Moody bring trumped up charges
against him, as even DD may not be able to get him out of this one.
Snape doesn't believe that DD gave Moody permission to search Snape's
office. Moody doesn't deny this.
> 
> So, you have your interpretation of the scene from your vision of
> Snape's POV and I have mine.

Carol responds:
I agree that in this scene Snape still thinks that Crouch!Moody is the
real Moody (he can't suspect Barty Jr., whom he believes to be dead),
and that he regards ex-Auror Moody as an enemy out to besmirch his
reputation or even send him to Azkaban. He may also have his
suspicions regarding "Moody's" motives and character (as he always
does about the DADA teacher): "Moody" has not only Transfigured a
student as punishment (against the rules), he has demonstrated illegal
curses and used one of them on his students, and he has broken into
Snape's office. Snape *thinks* he's looking for evidence of Dark magic
(that's Crouch!Moody's cover), but I'm guessing that he was really
looking for Polyjuice Potion ingredients that time, as we know he was
doing the second time (the night of the staircase incident).

I don't think that Snape is "terrified" of "Moody," however. First,
it's not in character. Snape seldom shows fear, and when he does, he
turns pale and his eyes glitter, as when he goes off at the end of GoF
to report to Voldemort. Snape is not a coward; I think what he's
feeling here is resentment and frustration. His remark, "Dumbledore
trusts me!" shows that he resents "Moody's" suspicions, especially
since "Moody" seems to implying that Snape is an unreformed Death
Eater (when in fact he means a DE who escaped punishment, unlike
himself) and that Snape put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire (which,
of course, he didn't do). Snape knows that Harry is standing there in
his Invisibility Cloak hearing the conversation, but he can't do
anything about it, and he's also frustrated and angry that "Moody" has
confiscated the piece of parchment that he by now knows or suspects is
a map. So I don't think he's afraid, just forced to control his anger.
(There may be a touch of jealousy as well if he thinks that "Moody"
has taken his place as DD's righthand man.)

As for the Dark Mark hurting Snape when "Moody" mentions it, my theory
has always been that it burns Snape (and no other Death Eater) when
it's mentioned or when Voldemort's name is spoken (Snape grabs his arm
in a similar way when Harry says the name during an Occlumency lesson)
because the mark senses that Snape is *disloyal* to Voldemort and is
punishing him. I also think that Crouch!Moody, who apparently sends
messages to Voldemort using an eagle owl, reports his suspicions of
Snape to Voldemort, and that this report is one reason why Voldemort
refers to Snape in the graveyard scene as the "one I believe has left
me forever."

Snape is most definitely not aiding "Moody," who puts the name into
the Goblet, turns it into a portkey, and helps Harry to win the
tournament with no aid whatever from Snape. Nor does Snape have any
idea who he really is, as shown by his "stop[ping] dead in the
doorway" and saying "Barty Crouch!" in a startled voice when the
Polyjuice Potion wears off. (Barty Jr. has been "dead" for something
like thirteen years.) I think, though, that Snape's suspicions have
been aroused by "Moody's" odd behavior and it's likely that he reports
the incident on the stairs to Dumbledore, who is trying to figure out
who might have put Harry's name in the Goblet. Even if Snape doesn't
suspect that "Moody" is an imposter, he clearly regards him as an
enemy and he always wants to place the DADA teacher in a bad light.

Whizbang wrote:

> > But, BartyJr answers to Vodle, and Snape can't take the chance
that BartyJr will carry tales of his disloyalty back to the DL. He may
not want to be a DE, but Snape still has that nasty tattoo on his arm.

Carol responds:
As I said above, I think Barty Jr. *has* owled Voldemort with tales of
Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and that those messages are one reason
(along with Snape's thwarting Quirrell three years earlier and his not
being in the graveyard when he was summoned) why Voldie suspects
Snape's disloyalty. If Snape had known that "Moody" was really Crouch
Jr. and they were really on the same side, he would not have mentioned
DD's faith in him. The remark has the opposite effect he intended,
increasing rather than decreasing "Moody's" distrust of Snape.

BTW, the Dark Mark not a tattoo, a Muggle method of permanently
decorating the skin using ink and needles, but a mark burned onto his
forearm with some sort of curse, quite possibly Morsmordre. The Dark
Mark, as Crouch!Moody says, doesn't come off, but Snape uses it in
ways for which it was not intended, reporting its darkening to
Dumbledore and showing it to Fudge later in the book as proof that
Voldemort has come back. (That action in itself shows that he is not a
coward afraid of punishment and that he is loyal to Dumbledore.) So
just because he still has the Dark Mark doesn't mean he's still a
loyal DE. He chooses to remain at Hogwarts with Dumbledore, not to run
away like Karkaroff ("Then flee! Flee--I will make your excuses. I ,
however, will remain at Hogwarts") and not to return to Voldemort
until Dumbledore sends him. Dark Mark or no Dark Mark, it's clear to
me that in GoF, at least, Snape's loyalties lie with Dumbldeore.

Colebiancardi wrote: 
> The Foe Glass scene is the best example we have that Snape is not
helping Jr. Otherwise, one could also argue that McGonagall or
Dumbledore could have been helping Jr, as well. Which we know they did
not.

Carol responds:
Exactly. Both Snape and McGonagall are working for Dumbledore against
whoever put Harry's name in the Goblet and tried to kill him, whether
that person is the real Moody or a DE in disguise. I agree that
Snape's showing up in the Foe Glass is our best evidence of DDM!Snape,
especially when combined with showing Fudge the Dark Mark and placing
himself in peril to return to Voldemort on DD's orders. (His version
of his actions in "Spinner's End" must be placed in the context of his
audience and motives in that chapter. He's not about to tell Bellatrix
that he obeyed Dumbledore as part of a prearranged plan ["If you are
ready, if you are prepared"] and that he's really Dumbledore's man.
He's trying to convince her that he's loyal to Voldemort.) 

Carol






From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com  Sat Nov 26 20:25:26 2005
From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:25:26 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmagbm+e5no@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143512


<snip chapter summary>
> 
> QUESTIONS.
> 

<snip all the questions except the one I want to discuss>

> 6. Slughorn claims that he spilled dragon blood on the walls, when 
> he was preparing his little charade. He also says that it may still 
> be reusable. How do you think it could be reusable after already 
> being spilled? Dragon blood keeps showing up in the series. Do you 
> think it may play important role in the ending? Do you think it 
> already played the important role in the beginning, but we may not 
> know about it yet?
> What do you think?


I  believe this is the single most important part of the chapter.
Let's review: we have a carefully constructed fake death scene. The
death scene is quite convincing except for the lack of one dark mark
in the sky. There is a dash of blood on the wall for effect. We learn
that it is dragon's blood.

At the end of the book, we have another death scene. The scene is very
convincing, and this time it includes a dark mark in the sky. There is
even a dash of blood on the face. Is it a real death scene, or has
Dumbledore learned from his experience at Slughorn's? The vast
majority of readers believe the death scene is real. Exactly *because*
of the presence of dragon's blood at Slughorn's is the reason I
believe Dumbledore's death is faked. Who is the master of dragon's
blood? Add to that the fact that the death occured out of view - over
the parapet - and I think we can make a good case for Dumbledore's
survival. Combine that with another point that Alla makes:

> 1. Consider the following quote from this chapter:
> Dumbledore: "However, I do not think you need worry about being 
> attacked tonight."
> Harry: "Why not, sir?"
> "You are with me," said Dumbledore simply.   
>  Now look at this quote in chapter 26,"The Cave:"
>  "I am not worried Harry," said Dumbledore, his voice a little 
> stronger despite the freezing water. "I am with you." 
> 
> Do you see any symbolic connection between these two quotes?
> 

I agree strongly that there is a symbolic connection in these two
quotes. By the end of the book, Dumbledore knows that Harry is ready
to take over as The Only One who can defeat Voldemort and that he must
do it alone. It is important for the final battle that Harry not
expect any rescue, so Dumbledore must take himself out of the picture.

CV






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 20:54:07 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:54:07 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <6d.5230a1e0.30b96feb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dmai1f+qp2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143513

Whizbang wrote:
<snip quotes and part of post> I'm suggesting that Snape is
responsible for both.  And  Snape gives a good explanation of the
confundus charm and it's effects at the  end of PoA.
> 
> 
> 
> Julie:
> Er, so Snape is a metamorphmagus animagus? Along with his potions
mastery, DarkArts/DADA knowledge, superb Occlumens/Legilimens ability,
and outstanding dueling skills--really, why didn't he just take out
Voldemort and Dumbledore a long time ago and start ruling the WW, as
he supposedly so fervently desires? Who could stand up to all this,
really? 
>  
> Okay, I'm being a bit sardonic, but it seems overkill for Snape to
be revealed as a surprise Animagus, let alone one who can morph from
insect to insect (besides, if he's an animagus, he should be a bat!). 
>  
> Sometimes a fly is just a fly, and a wasp is just a wasp ;-)

Carol adds:
Not to mention that he'd have to cast a Confundus Charm without a wand
while he was in fly or wasp form--quite a feat. Snape has enough
abilities and enough mysteries attached to him without crediting him
with planting prophecies and visions in Harry's mind, especially when
those events have other, more credible, explanations (Trelawney really
is a seer--on occasion; Voldemort planted the vision using the scar
connection).

Carol, who does not doubt that Snape is a powerful and talented
wizard, but considers him a tragic character, not a supervillain






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 21:11:16 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:11:16 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment
In-Reply-To: <dm2mnb+dgqa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmaj1k+perf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143514

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale"
<saraquel_omphale at y...> wrote:
>
> Jen wrote:
> > Jen: After re-reading GOF, it struck me Mad-Eye might be able to 
> >see magical concealment. He can see through invisibility cloaks and 
> > that's a form of concealment, right? ...
> 
> Saraquel:
> I always had the impression that rather than see with his physical 
> eyes, DD sensed people and magic in a 6th sense sort of way (for 
> want of a better expression).  In the cave he used his hands, 
> passing them over the rockface.  ...edited...

bboyminn:

I don't doubt for a second that abstract 'seeing' comes into play. In
a broad sense, detecting traces of magic or magical residue is like a
psychic sense, you have to be able to see beyond the mundane and the
ordinary. Though, I will stop short of calling this ability to detect
traces of magic a psychic ability. 

I suspect part of the ability to detect magical residue is related to
auras. While we know every living thing, and possibly non-living
things have an aura. These halos of energy, while generally not
visible to the average mundane person, can be scientifically detected
by a means such as Kirlian photography. Also, we know that people who
have a stongly developed 'second sight' can see auras around people. 

My main point is that there are probably a wide range of indications
and clues to the presents of magical forces. They could be subtle
visual clues that are passed over and ignored by most people, but are
visible to those who look closely and with a discerning eye. Other
aspects would be sensed, as in felt in both the abstract sense and the
physical sense.

And the logical extension of that main point is that, while Harry may
have the talent and ability to do just that, he has yet to develop the
skill. Part of my original point that spawned this thread was to make
a distinction between talent and skill. Talent is a potential; skill
is the practical realization of that potential. 




> Saraquel continues:
> 
> Most people have experienced the situation when they realise that 
> someone is behind them, not because they heard or saw the other 
> person, but because they suddenly sense them.  ...edited...

bboyminn: 

Somewhere in my earlier posts on this subject I pointed out that many
times Harry has been aware that he is being watch even when the person
or being watching him can't be seen or heard. I think this is a strong
indicator that Harry indeed has the abstact sense to detect magical
residue, but that abstract sense represents a latent talent; it's no
good to him if he doesn't develop it into a practical skill.

My main point, which we have strayed from slightly, is that Harry
really needs to start developing his skills, even if that action is
portrayed as occuring in the background off-page. Harry has all the
recourses necessary to him right now. Between Tonks and Lupin, Harry
should be able to hone his dueling skills and expand his range of
available curses and spells. Bill's presents give Harry a resource to
draw on to learn curse breaking. With that skill he can get at the
guarded Horcruxes. The resources are there, the question is, will
Harry put them to use? And if he doesn't, can the books maintain any
sense of realistic logic for me as the reader? Externally, to the
reader, we can say 'love conquers all', but internally, from the
prespective of the characters, Harry must start working; he can't
depend on blind luck forever.

Others have speculated that these people are all available to Harry
when ever he needs them. But, from the internal character perspective
of the story, it seems impractical. Harry can't travel through life
with an army of assistants following him around on the off chance he
might need to call on their skill. True Hermione has great book
knowledge that Harry can call on, but it is worthless if Hermione
isn't there. Bill Weasley has great curse breaking ability, but it's
worthless if Harry is faced with a cursed object and Bill isn't there.
None of these people's skills are significant if they can't be counted
on to be there when needed, and Harry can't really predict when he
will need them. 

Consequently, Harry must learn the skills himself, or at least
established a learned foundation in these various needed areas. 

> Saraquel continues:
>
> So regarding magical concealment, I imagine that the results of
> a spell can be hidden, but the fact that magic has been done 
> leaves a disturbance in the force, Luke, which it would be 
> impossible to disguise. 
>

bboyminn:

Perhaps this is a slight attempt at humor, but I think it very much
explains the exact nature of magical residue. Although exactly how
this 'disturbance in the force' will manifest itself, will occur in a
variety of ways and leave a wide variety of clues. I don't think it is
one and only one 'clue' or type of clue. 

I think Dumbledore is a supremely preceptive man. We all go through
life ignoring much of the information around us; we don't see the ants
on the sidewalk, or the birds in the trees, or the cloud in the sky.
As young, eager, and less wise individuals, we are so distracted by
ourselves and our petty concerns, we ignore a great deal of
information that an old and wise man like Dumbledore sees. 

For example, in the past we have disccussed how Dumbledore is able to
see through Invisibility Cloaks as is hinted at in the books. I have
contented that Dumbledore can't necessarily see through I-Cloaks, but
that with his vast awareness and deep preception, he sees things that
the world at large has filered out as background noise. Perhaps what
Dumbledore senses rather than sees is the bend of the floorboards, or
some subtle shift in the heat of the room, or some slight variation in
visual aberrations that are ignored by others. Things that are
available to every one who is willing to truly look for the clues.

I think some aspect of detection of magial residue is related to this
same level of preception; the clues are available to everyone who is
willing to look and who knows what to look for. Again, in this sense,
it is much more a matter of knowledge and skill, than raw talent or
ability.

> Saraquel concludes: 
> About Moody, his eye allows him to see *through* things in a 
> physical way, but I personally don't think that he is able to
> pick up at the energy level, like DD. ...edited...
> 
> Saraquel
>

bboyminn:

We don't actually know /how/ Mad-Eye's mad eye sees. Perhaps it sees
in a heat sensing/infra-red mode that allows him to see any heat
source. Certainly a person couldn't hide under an invisibility cloak
from this type of vision. We know the Snake's (Nagini) heat sensing
vision was able to see Mr. Weasley even though he was under the I-Cloak. 

I'm not saying this it true or not true, only making the point that we
don't know the exact nature of the /mad eye/. 

Back to the central point, in a sense I am saying that I agree with
you, but I'm not limiting it to your suggestion that magical residue
is 'sensed' in the abstract. While that is certainly part of it, I
think the core aspect is having a deep sense of perception and
awareness of the world around you and knowing what to look for.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn








From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 22:04:27 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:04:27 -0000
Subject: SNAPE - is he actually bad?
In-Reply-To: <dm8gvc+6hev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmam5b+774d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143515

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:

> Carol responds:
> Can you provide any evidence, aside from the one instance when he 
> calls Lily > a "Mudblood" (as a humiliated teenage boy under duress)
> when he's shown any inclination to uphold pureblood values? 
snip
> has more to do with their being in Gryffindor and with their 
> respective personalities than with their blood status. 

Whiz: 
Well if by "respective personalities" you mean Bloodtraitors and
Mugglelovers, then yes, it's because they are all in Gryffindor. 
Therefore Snape is upholding pureblood values when he bullies and ill
treats them.  Remember, purebloods tolerate halfbloods.  Hermione
mentions this when she says that the DEs would love to have Harry and
Ron join up.  I get the impression that halfbloods probably wouldn't
hold any important Ministry positions, but they would be tolerated. 
It's the muggles, muggleborns, and halfbreeds that purebloods show
racial intolerance towards.  

In that regard, Snape's calling Lily a mudblood is significant.  He
could have said he didn't need any help from a girl or from a
Gryffindor, or even a muggleborn.  But instead, he chose to use a
racial slur.   The fact that he was under duress is more reason to
accept that this is his true belief.  If he wasn't upset, he might
have thought the better of calling a school prefect a mudblood. 

Carol:
> But I can't think of a single instance when Snape does anything
> similar, unless you count "How should I know how a werewolf thinks?"
> (PoA, quoted from memory). 

Whiz:
Snape's actions speak louder then words.  

Revealing Lupin's condition to his Slytherin students after being
sworn to secrecy is a good example, however, as is joining the Death
Eaters back when Voldemort was preaching Slytherin's purification of
the race.  Being Lucius Malfoy's "good friend" as Narcissa calls him,
puts Snape in the company of a man whose ideology was unmistakably
stated in CoS.  

But clearly, he does not wish to serve Voldemort the Megalomaniac, so
Snape must have been among those who got "cold feet" and tried to
escape the DEs.  But there is no escape, so Snape must continue to
pretend to be loyal to Voldemort.

Carol:
> Also, I don't see how the Unbreakable Vow gives us a clue as to why
> Dumbledore trusts Snape. Can you clarify, please?

Whiz: 
Dumbledore's constant insistence that he trusts Snape suggests to me
that he has a good reason to do so.  We have already seen Snape betray
Dumbledore once, by revealing Lupin's condition after swearing
secrecy.  Dumbledore may believe in second chances, but he's not an
idiot.  

The Unbreakable Vow is an example of the kind of magic that can bind a
wizard to certain behavior.  A similar bond between Dumbledore and
Snape may exist, giving Dumbledore a reason to trust Snape.  I tend to
believe that Dumbledore saved Snape's life when he took him to
Hogwarts, not only keeping him out of Azkaban, but saving him from
other DEs.  We still don't know the all the ramifications and
requirements of a life debt, though I'm sure we'll find out soon
enough as Pettigrew owes his life to Harry.







From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 22:14:03 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:14:03 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm876j+hf71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmamnb+n38h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143516

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> I have never understood why people in the DDM!Snape camp are so very 
> insistent that Snape NOT be blamed or punished for his grudges and 
> vengeful behavior, but insist that Harry must forgive Snape  in 
> order to be one of the good guys.  Seems like doublethink to me.

> Lupinlore

Whiz: 
I agree.  Even the author has suggested that Snape is more culpable
for his crimes than Voldemort is, because Snape has experienced love.







From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 22:19:49 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:19:49 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm6kvg+ngcf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dman25+rlmb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143517

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" <ornawn at 0...> wrote:

> And another question, which occurred to me ? why didn't Voldemort 
> try to kidnap Trelawney then and there to extract the prophecy from 
> her?  

> Orna

Whiz:
Dumbledore anticipated this possibility.  That's exactly why he hired
her and gave her a home at Hogwarts, out of reach of Voldemort and his
henchmen.  Otherwise, it was his inclination to drop Divination, a
subject he himself never studied.







From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 22:29:31 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:29:31 -0000
Subject: Lunatic side of Fake! Moody WAS Re: The Nature of Snape's Spy Work
In-Reply-To: <016c01c5f233$40bded90$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmankb+ao3p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143518

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <xmilesx at g...> wrote:
> Miles: 
> Just one of the latter - Fake!Moody in the scene he punishes Draco
> for attacking Harry from the back. He then really seems to be furious,
> even he takes the "wrong" side considering he is a Deatheater. Crouch 
> jr is a maniac, and definitely one of the bad guys, but he is rather 
> lunatic than altogether evil.
> 
> Miles

Whiz: 
I won't suggest that CrouchJr isn't a lunatic.  But remember, he hated
a DE who got away, as Malfoy and others did when they claimed to be
under the Imperious while others were in Azkaban for their loyalty. 
And he was ingratiating himself with Harry, who he intended to deliver
to his master at the end of the year.  So I don't think CrouchJr was
acting on the side of good when he attacked Draco.  He was venting
frustration against Lucius and protecting his prey.







From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 26 22:35:13 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:35:13 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <017801c5f236$b083a360$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmanv1+c9f1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143519

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <xmilesx at g...> wrote:
> Miles: 
> But - Snape *is* punished, if he is DDM. He killed Dumbledore! 
snip
> He will never return to Hogwarts. He will be even more an outsider 
> than ever before.  You really think he has not to pay a very high 
> price? I do.
> 
> Miles

It's a fair point that when Snape "killed" Dumbledore, he lost his
protection.  All that screaming about not calling him a coward may be
a clue that with Dumbledore gone, Snape is truly under the terrifying
thumb of the DL.  

Nasty.







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 27 00:47:59 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:47:59 -0000
Subject: Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <017801c5f236$b083a360$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmavnv+1j15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143520

> Miles: 
> What kind of justice? Poetic? ;) SCNR
> But - Snape *is* punished, if he is DDM. He killed Dumbledore! 
Dumbledore,
> the only man that trusted him out of true belief. And he will be 
the one who
> killed the greatest wizard of his time. He will never return to 
Hogwarts. He
> will be even more an outsider than ever before.
> You really think he has not to pay a very high price? I do.
> 

 
No, I really don't think Snape has been punished (within the context 
of the Harry/Neville situation), because his suffering has not yet 
been directly linked to his unforgiveable treatment of Harry and 
Neville.  Now, if, in Book VII, it is verified that Snape is in a 
great deal of pain, and that he believes that if he had treated Harry 
and Neville better that pain might have been, at least in part, 
averted (whether he is actually *sorry* would depend on which type of 
Snape we end up with), and especially if we are given evidence that 
he was warned/advised to mend his ways (probably but not necessarily 
by DD) then I would agree that yes, poetic justice has in large part 
been served (and with no particular reason to go very deep into a lot 
of specific instances).  However, absent such evidence, I would say 
that it has not yet been served.  As with DD and the Dursleys before 
HBP, we are awaiting a shoe to drop.  I am afraid, however, that as 
with DD and the Dursleys the dropping of the shoe will create as many 
problems/holes/arguments as it palliates.


Lupinlore









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 27 02:15:19 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 02:15:19 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dma6lq+j2k0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmb4rn+i3pj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143521

Nora:
> I mean that it's a good time to re-examine (and there has been 
> postage to these ends) our previous interpretations of the glances 
> that Harry got in the Pensieve scene of Snape's 'homelife'.  None 
of 
> us expected Tobias Snape, Muggle, methinks...and that makes the 
whole 
> idea of an abusive father a little more difficult (if still not 
> impossible).  Given that Snape comes to school knowing magic and 
> mommy is a witch, the idea that her husband is abusing her pops a 
few 
> holes.  I think this is perhaps furthered by the notices in the 
paper 
> of marriage and birth; formality, maybe, but it could also speak to 
a 
> serious match.
> 
> Someone else out in the firmament posted the idea that maybe it's 
> Tobias who has gotten scared and shocked by something naughty 
Eileen 
> has done, and is shouting in fear and reaction.  That works for me; 
> no monopoly on abuse by fathers, after all.

Ceridwen:
I thought, once we knew that Snape was the HBP, that maybe the scene 
Harry witnessed in Snape's memories was memorable to Snape because a) 
it was unusual, therefore frightening young Severus and making such 
an impression, and b), that it was Tobias's reaction to finding out 
that wife and son, or now son as well as wife, were magical.

I don't think it's beyond possibility.  Seamus Finnegan said that it 
was a 'nasty shock' to his father to find out his wife was a witch.  
Tom Riddle, sr. left his witchly wife.  It seems to be a dagger of 
either major or minor proportions, in the mixed marriages it affects 
in the books.  Why not the Snape marriage?

I do agree that Muggle Tobias makes it harder to believe that Witch 
Eileen would allow herself to be abused.  Though some parts of the WW 
seem to be very traditional, as in Molly's staying home with the kids 
while the family struggles on a single income, other parts have 
liberated witches holding high positions in Hogwarts, the government, 
and probably in other businesses as well.  While domestically, on the 
surface it seems that men are the Rulers of the Roost, underneath as 
well, it seems that Mom rules the castle.  This is Eileen's 
heritage.  I can't see her (or any witch) settling for abuse.  Not 
even for love.  After a while, that just doesn't work.

In fact, that doesn't jibe with either Muggle or Wizard Tobias.  At 
least, not to me, now that I'm thinking about it.  I couldn't see any 
witch we've met in the books allowing someone to abuse them.

I do think the Prince-Snape marriage was a serious match.  Probably a 
love-match, since it's between different cultures.  And, it looks 
like someone in the Prince family gave their blessing, too, since 
announcements were put into the paper.  If so, I think that pokes 
holes in the Pureblood Supremacist Princes, too...

Though, the Daily Prophet might run announcements anyway just 
because, so maybe the announcements are just there to give Hermione 
information.  Small items are often run by smalltown papers without 
payment, and just with information from publicly available sources.

Ceridwen.






From le_green_dragon at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 26 22:54:57 2005
From: le_green_dragon at yahoo.co.uk (le_green_dragon)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:54:57 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dm3057+8vbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmap41+5uuj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143522

Luciaman:
<SNIP> 
> But I suppose in the end Snape might be revealed as loyal to 
> Dumbledore (I think that will be more difficult to write, though), 
> or as a truly evil man determined to surpass Voldemort and become 
> the next Dark Lord. Anything Snape goes.


Are you suggesting that Snape killed Dumbledore because he realised he
was dying anyway and that there was no way Snape could fight his way
passed the DEs in time to get his potions kit and save ADs life? 
Aren't you overlooking the fact that Snape's face was contorted with
hatred when he killed AD?  I think he may have his own agenda, and not
be entirely loyal to LV, but I don't think he ever was loyal to AD; 
he just played his part well. 


le_green_dragon








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Nov 27 03:28:34 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 03:28:34 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmb4rn+i3pj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmb952+hlit@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143523



>Ceridwen wrote: 
> I do agree that Muggle Tobias makes it harder to believe that Witch 
> Eileen would allow herself to be abused.

Potioncat:
Oh, Isn't JKR lovely! Who expected the Gaunt-Riddle dynamics? For 
that matter, who read the chapter title "House of Gaunt" and expected 
that family! I was expecting a household of kings and kings to be. 
So, aren't we all wondering what the twist is to the Snape family?

>Ceridwen:
>  I can't see her (or any witch) settling for abuse.  Not 
> even for love.  After a while, that just doesn't work.

Potioncat:
Well, let's face it. We don't really know who was in that memory. Was 
it Eileen? Harry doesn't register that Eileen (from her school photo) 
was the woman he saw in Snape's memory, but that means nothing. Was 
it Tobias? Could it have been Grandfather Prince? I suppose Eileen, 
like Merope and Tonks was "weak" with love, but I doubt it. 

Eileen had enough contact with the Muggle world to meet and marry a 
Muggle. Yet, little Severus will arrive at Hogwarts knowing more 
curses than most 7th years. Lots of gaps here. Of course, one could 
practice Dark Magic without being a Pureblood.

My personal speculation is that Eileen was expelled from Hogwarts and 
was unable to do most magic, therefore was at a angry Muggle's mercy 
in that scene.
 

>Ceridwen: 
> I do think the Prince-Snape marriage was a serious match.  Probably 
a 
> love-match, since it's between different cultures.  And, it looks 
> like someone in the Prince family gave their blessing, too, since 
> announcements were put into the paper.  If so, I think that pokes 
> holes in the Pureblood Supremacist Princes, too...

Potioncat:
I agree, and that makes it unlikely that it's Grandfather Prince. If 
it is him, it's not the the marriage and child he's upset about. Of 
course the two annoucements could have been placed by Eileen. They 
were small...it wasn't big news, and it appears to have been a small, 
or at least, unimportant wedding. But it was public knowledge.

I snipped your comment that the whole purpose of the announcement was 
for Hermione to find...and it isn't some sort of clue. That could be 
correct too. It could be that the Daily Prophet has some magical way 
of knowing when a magical wedding  has taken place and therefore, 
prints it.  Hmmm...so should we look for the Riddle-Gaunt wedding and 
would the birth of Tom Riddle automatically appear? 

Bottom line...I don't have the slightest idea what is really going 
on. But it doesn't seem to me that Severus Snape was raised with any 
Pureblood ideology.

Potioncat








From hg_skmg at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 03:29:54 2005
From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 03:29:54 -0000
Subject: What is the role of the Dragon Blood in the series? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP4
In-Reply-To: <dmagbm+e5no@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmb97i+g1a5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143524


Constance Vigilance:
<SNIP>
At the end of the book, we have another death scene. The scene is very
> convincing, and this time it includes a dark mark in the sky. There is
> even a dash of blood on the face. Is it a real death scene, or has
> Dumbledore learned from his experience at Slughorn's? The vast
> majority of readers believe the death scene is real. Exactly *because*
> of the presence of dragon's blood at Slughorn's is the reason I
> believe Dumbledore's death is faked. Who is the master of dragon's
> blood? Add to that the fact that the death occured out of view - over
> the parapet - and I think we can make a good case for Dumbledore's
> survival...It is important for the final battle that Harry not
> expect any rescue, so Dumbledore must take himself out of the picture.

hg:
I wholeheartedly agree and hope to expand upon two points.

First, the Dark Mark.  It seems there's room to speculate (when 
comparing the timelines of the activity/players in Hogsmeade with those 
at Hogwarts) that the Dark Mark was already set when Gibbon went up to 
the tower to set it.  Lupin assumes that Gibbon did it, but if he did, 
it seems to leave not enough time for Rosmerta to see it, Dumbledore & 
Harry to arrive, etc.  I wonder if he left the top of the tower so 
quickly because he saw it was already there.

Second, I think it's more JKR's intent that Harry should "go it alone" 
than Dumbledore's; however, CV says it in such a way that I can 
envision Dumbledore being motivated, at least in part, to fake his 
death for this purpose.  There are other purposes to be served by 
making this choice, and one of those particularly appealing to me is 
Dumbledore's ability to lure Voldemort into unwittingly leading him 
directly to the unknown Horcrux.  If Voldemort discovers that 
Dumbledore has been hunting down the Horcruxes, which he could most 
likely do in a number of ways, it would make sense that his first 
action would be to check on all of them to make sure they're in place 
and intact.  This would probably be risky on Dumbledore's part, a 
gamble with time and with Harry's ability to figure out what and where 
the known ones are, but it seems like a gamble Dumbledore might take, 
in my opinion.

hg.








From le_green_dragon at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 26 22:44:43 2005
From: le_green_dragon at yahoo.co.uk (le_green_dragon)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:44:43 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)
In-Reply-To: <dm2og3+ajje@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmaogr+8hmh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143525

> CH3ed:
I agree with Ginny that the DEs knew Peter was the Secret Keeper 
(had Sirius been the SK and blabbed to Peter, that info still can't 
have been passed on to LV because in order to be able to find the 
Potters LV had to have heard it from the SK himself...like Harry had 
to read the note from DD in order to see 12 GP). So the most obvious 
conclusion is to extend that Snape knew that Peter was the betrayer 
and murderer(of 12 muggles) and not Sirius. 
However, it is still possible that Snape didn't know about Peter being a DE. <SNIP>


Le Green Dragon:
I think Ginny is right about the DEs knowing Pettigrew was the
traitor, not Sirius.  Snape was trying to get Harry expelled from
Hogwarts because of his hatred of James, and he couldn't let
Dumbledore know that he knew something which only the DEs could have
known.

When the DEs turned up at the graveyard, at the end of GoF, LV went
round talking to them, but he didn't name them all and they were all
masked.  I think it was Snape who said that LV operated in secrecy,
and that not all DEs knew who the others all were.

le Green Dragon 








From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 05:13:56 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:13:56 -0000
Subject: Harry and Ginny forever?
Message-ID: <dmbfak+39kh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143526

I was mulling over the Harry/Ginny romance and I'm wondering if it 
will make it.  Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for them, I think it's 
great. But, how many people actually find their "soul mate"  that 
early in life?  I know, I know, people do it every day, and my BIL and 
SIL have been together since they were sixteen and, twenty years later 
they are still together.  But this is the wizarad world and there is a 
very strong Dark Lord  loose.  My point is, does anyone else feel that 
something bad might possibly happen to Ginny?  Is it too early for 
them to be together?  When the Bill/Fleur engagement was discussed in 
HBP, Molly thought they were rushing it.  But she said that it was 
different for her and Arthur, because they were meant for each other.  
Are Ginny and Harry meant for each other?  Do any of you think that 
JKR intends for them to end up with each other in the end?  Part of me 
wonders if something will happen to Ginny and Harry will end up 
alone...that sounds so sad.  I'm just interested in opinions :)

Alora 






From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 05:18:52 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:18:52 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm8qmg+job5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmbfjs+84no@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143527

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:
> > Whiz:
> > It's not so much interpretation as looking at the scene from 
> > Snape's PoV.
> 
> Colebiancardi: 
> And that is still interpretation. We don't know Snape's POV. I could
> state that Snape's POV is that he is terrified of Mad-Eye. That he 
> doesn't know it is really Barty Jr and that we do know that the real
> Mad-Eye is paranoid ? snip

Whiz:
But that "interpretation" completely ignores a couple of things we
know.  For example, we know that Snape is capable of Legilimency and
highy skilled in Occlumency.  When he thought he was dealing with the
real Moody on the stairs, he was angry and self righteous.  It was
after the staring match that Snape's attitude suddenly changed.  Now
we've seen this kind of staring match before.  

Quote: PoA, ch 17
... Lupin caught them all deftly, then moved into the room, staring at
Black ...
... Black's face was quite expressionless.  For a few seconds, he
didn't move at all
... "But then...," Lupin muttered, staring at Black so intently it
seemed he was trying to read his mind, "... why hasn't he shown
himself before now?  Unless" - Lupin's eyes suddenly widened, as
though he was seeing something beyond Black, something none of the
rest could see, " - unless he was the one ... unless you switched ...
without telling me?"

   Very slowly, his sunken gaze never leaving Lupin's face, Black nodded.
... Lupin was lowering his wand, gazing fixedly at Black. 

Whiz:
When Sirius and Lupin engaged in a staring match, information was
exchanged mentally in what seems to be a form of legilimency.  Harry
tried to do the same thing in OotP.

Quote: OotP, ch 32
... Snape looked back at Harry, who stared at him, frantic to
communicate without words.
Voldemort's got Sirius in the Department of Mysteries, he thought
desperately. Voldemort's got Sirius -

Whiz:
(Another reason to wonder why it took Snape so long to alert the
Order. *rolleyes*)
This is what happened between Snape and Crouch/Moody on the stairs. 
Up to this point, Snape has been perfectly able to give "Moody" as
good as he gets, but his attitude takes a remarkable turn here.

Quote: GoF, ch 25
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 - 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.
Mrs Norris gave a loud meow, still peering around Filch's legs,
looking for the source of Harry's bubble-bath smell. 

   "I think I will go back to bed," Snape said curtly. 

   "Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. 

Whiz:  Harry couldn't see Snape's face or understand what was going on
at the time, but we have other instances to compare this to. 
Interesting to note that earlier, Crouch/Moody tells Snape,
"I look forward to meeting you in a dark corridor some time...."
Is CrouchJr letting Snape know that he wants to meet with him?

> Colebiancardi: 
snip
> It is at this time Snape grabbed his own forearm, which has the Dark
> Mark on it (we don't know it yet, of course). However, my
> interpretation of the scene, from Snape's POV, is that he is afraid
> of Moody, he knows Moody wants any excuse to get him, as Snape was a
> DE ? 

Whiz: And at this point, I agree.  I only brought this up to show that
when this occurred, neither we nor Harry knew why Snape grabbed his
arm.  That was something we learned later on.  Harry also doesn't know
about the staring/exchanging information, though we saw it in PoA.  He
didn't know what happened in PoA and he still didn't know in GoF.  Not
until he learns about legilimency and occlumency in OotP, does Harry
suspect that information can be transferred this way.

Colebiancardi: 
> This is a showdown between a person that Snape believes to be the
> real deal, IMHO, an ex-Auror who put away more DeathEaters than any
> other.

Whiz:
Exactly.  The change comes after the staring.

Colebiancardi: 
snip
> Yes, I will agree that Harry's POV is hopeless limited, which is why
> I am in the DDM!Snape camp.

Whiz: Sadly, I don't know what DDM!Snape means.

> Colebiancardi: 
snip
> First off, you didn't state that Snape was helping Barty Jr against
> Snape's will. 

Whiz: 
My mistake.  I do not believe that Snape works for Voldemort
willingly.  I also don't believe he wanted CrouchJr questioning his
loyalty to the DL.

> Colebiancardi: 
snip
> ... confused by your argument now about Snape would want to get
> away, when he knows Voldemort is coming. He has known it a long time
> and has told DD about it, with his Dark Mark getting clearer. 

Whiz:
Dumbledore has discussed the Dark Mark with Snape.  But Snape did not
tell Dumbledore about Crouch/Moody as Dumbledore is clearly shocked
when he finds out.  So Snape did not tell Dumbledore that Moody was
CrouchJr and Snape was protecting Dumbledore's office from intruders
while CrouchJr killed his father. 

Again, I don't think it's a question of Snape being loyal to either
Dumbledore or Voldemort.  I think he is loyal to neither.  It seems to
me that this is why we can never understand which side he's on.  There
is evidence pro and con for both camps.  But taken all together, I
believe the evidence points to Snape upholding Salazar Slytherin's old
Purification of the Race agenda.

> Colebiancardi: 
snip
> Nothing is said about eliminating half-breeds, to my recollection. 
> Just muggle-borns & half-bloods. There is a hatred towards 
> half-breeds, but Voldemort has not declared war on them yet.

Whiz:  
That's because he hasn't.  It's the pureblood racists who hate the
halfbreeds and muggleborns.  Voldemort gave up that agenda, "Salazar
Slytherin's noble work," long ago when he decided to pursue his own
agenda of world domination instead.  There are three distinct agendas
at work here.
Dumbledore works toward an egalitarian inclusive society.
Purebloods work towards a racist pureblood supremacist society.
Voldemort just wants to rule the world.

Snape, like many others, joined Voldemort when he was still preaching
the racist lines, but got cold feet when he ditched it to pursue his
own goals.  This is why we see Fudge, a racist, helping Dumbledore, an
egalitarian, against their common enemy, the nutcase who wants to take
over the world.

> Colebiancardi: 
snip
> Ron is a pureblood, so that doesn't count. 

Whiz:
As Ron points out, he's a bloodtraitor.

> Colebiancardi: 
> Yes, purebloods might tolerate half-bloods to get what they want, 
> eliminate muggle-borns, but after that? When does it stop?  
snip

Whiz:
That question is answered in CoS and HBP.  If they hadn't married
muggles, the wizarding race would have died off, as there are so few
purebloods left.

> colebiancardi: 
> That is the quote I was looking for. No, they didn't
> change their minds because Voldy wanted power for himself ? I mean,
> what did they think, when he calls himself LORD Voldemort? No, the
> quote is and you did quote it ? They got cold feet when they saw 
> what he was prepared TO DO TO GET POWER, not that they got cold feet
> when they saw he wanted power. See, even the Germans who may have 
> agreed with Hilter about the Jews, about moving them away into 
> ghettos and separating them into camps, if THEY knew that Hitler was
> planning to exterminate all the Jews, I doubt they would have 
> followed him. 
snip
> So, purification and extermination are two different things. 
> Voldemort's true colors were that he wasn't content in separating
> the 2 worlds ? he wanted to eliminate one of the worlds completely.

Whiz: I agree that line can be read that way, and I do see your point.
But I'm not sure the rest of the story bears this out.

Quote: OotP, ch 6
Araminta Mehflua... cousin of my mothers... tried to force through a
Ministry Bill to make Muggle-hunting legal

Quote: CoS, ch 17
"Haven't I already told you," said Riddle quietly, "that killing
Mudbloods doesn't matter to me anymore? For many months now, my new
target has been ? you."

Whiz:
Riddle only mentions mudbloods.  He sure abandoned Slytherin's noble
work in a hurry.  

Quote: GoF, ch 33
 You are still ready to take the lead in a spot of Muggle-torture, I
believe?  Yet you never tried to find me, Lucius....  Your exploits at
the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay ... but might not your
energies have been better directed toward finding and aiding your master?"

Quote: OotP, ch 6
"... getting rid of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge.

Whiz:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but nowhere do I get the impression that
Voldemort has any intention of putting anyone but himself in charge. 
He's not working for the cause of the Pureblood Supremacists or
putting them back in charge.  This would put him in an awkward
position as he himself, is not a pureblood.  Voldemort is only working
to gain power for himself.  His closest aides, the pureblood DEs are
his servants at best and his terrified slaves at worst.  They kneel
and grovel in his presence, and he counts loyalty to himself their
highest purpose.  He tortures them when they displease him and has
them killed if they try to leave his service.

  Voldemort doublecrossed the purebloods, who joined him in hopes of
gaining power, by enslaving them and concentrating all power in
himself.  And those devoted to regaining power for the purebloods,
Fudge and Malfoy for example, worked quietly and behind the scenes for
years to take over the Ministry and had possibly begun to cast their
shadow over Gringotts.  But Voldemort wasn't impressed.  His concern
was not that they pursue Slytherin's work, but that they look for him.

So while I concede that Sirius's line in OotP, ch 6 can be interpreted
in more than one way, I believe that the story supports the
interpretation that Voldemort was seeking power for himself.

snip, snip, snip

Whiz:
I am not convinced that Snape didn't plant the prophesies as well as
the corridor dreams Harry had in OotP.

> > Whiz:
> > The books suggest otherwise. Narcissa calls Snape, Lucius' good
> > friend. 
 
> Colebiancardi: Yes, she does call him that ? and why? Because she
> WANTS something from him. You don't go and insult a person whom you
> are trying to get help from? And in this case, the request can kill
> Snape if he doesn't follow through. snip
> Not a very positive description of a "good friend". Narcissa is
> buttering Snape up, to get him to help her. 
snip

Whiz: 
This is why I've been wondering if Snape is Draco's godfather.  With
Lucius in Azkaban, it seems as though Narcissa would turn to Draco's
godfather for help.  Sirius' role as Harry's godfather seemed to
include taking the responsibility of a legal guardian.  Does Narciss
want Snape to fulfill the same role?  Is this another kind of magical
bond?  Is that why Snape agrees to take the vow? 

... Still thinking about that one.  Hmmm....

> Colebiancardi: 
> We don't know much about Eileen, that is true. But, she could not
> have been a big Voldemort supporter, as a) she married a muggle and
> b) we don't hear her name as a DE.

Whiz: An unattractive youngster at Hogwarts.  The general concensus is
that the man and the cowering woman in Snape's memory were his
parents.  But I can't count out the possibility of another theory that
the hook nosed man was Snape's grandfather, abusing his daughter for
marrying a muggle and bringing home a half blood child.  Why would a
witch cower before a muggle husband?  Even if he had her wand and cut
her off from the magical world while abusing her, why was Snape so
well versed when he got to Hogwarts?  In fact, why was he sent to
Hogwarts at all?  hmmm....  Either way, Snape, like Voldemort, had
reason to hate and renounce his muggle father.  Whether it was her
husband or her father who childe Snape saw abusing his mother, his
attitude toward muggles would have been extremely negative and he
would have every reason to work hard to excel in magic.  Did Eileen's
family go to Slytherin house as Snape did?  Interesting.  We don't
know if Eileen or her family supported Voldemort, but we do know that
Snape fashioned himself a new name, a royal name, just as Voldemort,
another halfblood, had done.  

> Colebiancardi:  
> I would argue that unless it is right there in print, that it is
> noncanoncial. You didn't change a word, but you came to conclusions
> that were YOUR interpretation of the scene. Flys, wasps = Snape?
> That is major guesswork. Which we all do. But it is your opinion and
> it is not canon. You don't know Snape's POV and you don't know the
> backstory ? if you did, we all would and there would be no
> guesswork, which is what JKR wants. I don't mind people's guesswork 
> & interpretations ? I do it and I enjoy it when others do it as 
> well.  But to state it is canon & all around? That is stretching it 
> a bit, don't you think?

Whiz:
Well, not all of it.  The thought that Snape is Draco's godfather is
fuzzy and was never presented as canon.  That is extrapolation.  But
the scene on the stairs I believe can be read from more than one PoV,
and if we look at it while considering everything we learned before
and after, that Harry wasn't aware of at the time, it takes on a
different meaning.  
As for Snape's animagus, there are buzzing insects mentioned before
the second prophesy and a corridor dream. The only time Harry has the
dream without falling asleep is in Snape's presence during an
occlumency lesson, though he may have been dazed by his fall.  Snape
is also present when Trelawney delivers her first prophesy in the
Hog's Head, which she doesn't recommend because of the bedbugs.  
Hmmm... I'll concede the insects could mean something else.  ;)






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 05:25:43 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:25:43 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dmap41+5uuj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmbg0n+rski@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143528

<le_green_dragon at y...> wrote:
>

> Are you suggesting that Snape killed Dumbledore because he realised he
> was dying anyway and that there was no way Snape could fight his way
> passed the DEs in time to get his potions kit and save ADs life? 
> Aren't you overlooking the fact that Snape's face was contorted with
> hatred when he killed AD?  I think he may have his own agenda, and not
> be entirely loyal to LV, but I don't think he ever was loyal to AD; 
> he just played his part well. 

Hatred and revulsion, actually. Which, we must assume, are the emotions 
which twisted Harry's face in the cave when, 'hating himself, repulsed 
by what he was doing', Harry poured the potion down Dumbledore's 
throat. The narrator tells us how Snape looks, we have to determine why.

If this does not work for you, consider also that in the scenario you 
describe, Snape has decided to cast the Avada Kedavra. We do not know 
precisely what emotions/thoughts are needed for the successful casting 
of the spell, but we might guess they would not be pleasant ones.






From schumar1999 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 05:42:45 2005
From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:42:45 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dmap41+5uuj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmbh0l+gvng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143529

le_green_dragon wrote:
 <snip>Aren't you overlooking the fact that Snape's face was 
contorted withhatred when he killed AD? I think he may have his own agenda, and notbe 
entirely loyal to LV, but I don't think he ever was loyal to AD;he just played his part well.

Marianne S.: 
After reading it many times, I still believe that Snape's face was contorted with hatred for 
the Act he Must Do - which is to kill Dumbledore, not hatred for AD himself. So, to turn 
the tables on you... aren't YOU overlooking the fact that Dumbledore did not fear death yet 
was begging Snape to do something. Dumbledore is not the type to beg for his life... but I 
could see him begging for his Death if it is what Must Be Done. 

I don't think Snape is necessarily loyal to the Order, but I believe he is loyal only to 
Dumbledore. Perhaps one of the reasons he hated to kill Dumbledore was because he 
knew this would make him a fugative from both sides... obviously the Order won't trust 
him now, but I doubt he delivered Draco to what I saw as certain death from LV. After all, 
just because the Job was Done doesn't mean Draco, who didn't complete it, is off the hook 
in LVs eyes. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe LV would be very 
suspicious of Snape completing this task... a task he SHOULD know nothing about. When it 
comes down to it, I don't believe LV ever really truly completely trusted Snape. However, 
Dumbledore did, and therefore Snape was able to be completely honest with him, as in 
that argument that Hagrid overheard, rather than having to play the game and use 
legilimancy as he did with Narcissa (and Belatrix). I have a feeling that, at least 
immediately after his Flight from Hogwarts, Snape is still doing what Dumbledore wanted, 
protecting Draco (and Narcissa). But, I also have a feeling that Snape will meet a sticky end 
(probably just as Harry realizes he IS loyal to Dumbledore). I'll be glad to be proven wrong 
or right on any of these counts. 






From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Nov 26 22:12:51 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:12:51 -0500
Subject: HP essays on Decent Films
Message-ID: <002801c5f2d6$91f542a0$ea002b45@b9g2u1>

No: HPFGUIDX 143530

 http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/search?search=Search&title=harry+potter

These deal mostly with the films, but they do refer also to the 
books.  Although I don't agree with everything that the author 
says, I certainly think he makes some good points.

Bruce








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 27 00:37:18 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:37:18 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dm8qmg+job5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmav3u+rgeu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143531

> Colebiancardi:
<SNIP>
 I think you are coming from this on the assumption 
that
> Snape is evil ? and I doubt that I or any other DDM!Snape believers
> have ever stated that Harry must forgive Snape if Snape is truly 
evil.
> If Snape isn't evil, why would you want Harry to kill him or not
> understand what happened? Snape not be blamed or punished for his
> grudges or vengeful behavior ? I think he has been punished ? look 
at
> where he ended up at ? at Hogwarts, teaching a bunch of dunderheads.
> Snape's grudges were also Sirius's grudges ? I don't remember anyone
> stating Sirius needed to let go of his grudge towards Snape.


Lupinlore:
Oh, I am not coming at this at all from the assumption that Snape is 
evil.  In fact, I very much doubt we will see any such thing.  I 
think that an OFH!Snape or some variety of Grey!Snape makes the most 
sense.  Therefore, my comments have nothing whatsoever, in this 
instance, to do with what happened on the tower.

Rather, they have to do with the fact that Snape seems to be a 
character that people want to see redeemed.  Fine, redemption is 
always good for a hankey  or two.  But redemption can't happen if 
some accounting is not made for the way Snape has acted as a 
teacher.  Sorry, just can't be done.

Now, as Alla (at least I THINK it was Alla) said, there are ways of 
doing that which don't require a revisit of each and every incident.  
Indeed, that would be silly even by my standards.  However, if some 
accounting for the way Snape has treated Harry and Neville is not 
made, then Snape cannot, I think, be considered redeemed.  As you 
say, even most DDM!Snape people cannot find excuses for his treatment 
of Neville, and trying to justify his behavior toward Harry is also 
almost impossible even by the most liberal DDM! standards.  
Therefore, redemption requires some accounting for this -- possibly 
along the lines of what we saw with Dumbledore and the Dursleys, 
although for Snape to be redeemed he would have to admit his fault 
whereas the Dursleys of course did not.

Colebiancardi:
 Snape
> has a lot of issues dealing with certain students, but if that was
> something that DD didn't want the students to be exposed to, he 
would
> not have hired Snape in as a teacher. 

Lupinlore:
Well, I don't think saying "DD must have wanted it and therefore it's 
good and Snape doesn't need to make some kind of recompense/undergo 
some kind of punishment" in any way provides any sort of defense or 
justification of Snape at all -- nor does it provide defense of JKR 
against what would be, after all, an extremely lame way of dealing 
with these very important issues.  After all, DD has been set up, for all his goodness, as FAR from a perfect man.  And the fact that DD made the decision in no way releases Snape from punishment for his sins.

Actually, as far as this goes, it is really irrelevant whether Snape 
is DDM!, OFH!, ESE!, or a Martian in disguise.  In order for him to 
be redeemed the issue of his abuse of Harry and Neville simply MUST 
be addressed.  And I don't mean "it was part of DD's plan so it was 
okay."


Lupinlore










From le_green_dragon at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 26 22:31:42 2005
From: le_green_dragon at yahoo.co.uk (le_green_dragon)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:31:42 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment
In-Reply-To: <dmaj1k+perf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmanoe+2ohl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143532

> > Saraquel:
> > I always had the impression that rather than see with his 
> > physical eyes, DD sensed people and magic in a 6th sense 
> > sort of way (for want of a better expression).  In the cave 
> > he used his hands, passing them over the rockface. 
> > ...edited...
 
> bboyminn:
> I don't doubt for a second that abstract 'seeing' comes into
> play. In a broad sense, detecting traces of magic or magical 
> residue is like a psychic sense, you have to be able to see 
> beyond the mundane and the ordinary. <snip>

> bboyminn: 
> Others have speculated that these people are all available to 
> Harry when ever he needs them. But, from the internal character 
> perspective of the story, it seems impractical. Harry can't 
> travel through life with an army of assistants following him 
> around on the off chance he might need to call on their skill. 
> True Hermione has great book knowledge that Harry can call on, 
> but it is worthless if Hermione isn't there. <snip>

> bboyminn:
> We know the Snake's (Nagini) heat sensing vision was able to 
> see Mr. Weasley even though he was under the I-Cloak. <snip>


Writing from memory, when Arthur Weasley was attacked by Nagini, 
he had fallen asleep and the cloak had slipped from him!  The 
snake didn't need to use anything other than normal vision to 
see him.

I was speculating whether Hermione might visit Krum to gain 
access to Durmstrangs library, which would undoubtedly have a 
lot of info about Horcruxes.  There is probably a specific curse 
to destroy a horcrux, which Dumbledore may not have known due to 
his censorship of the subject at Hogwarts, and with which he 
could have avoided the injury to his hand.

Is Harry's parents home still magically concealed?  With the 
secret keeper still alive, and with one of the three people whose 
secret it was still alive, the house should be invisible to all 
except those whom Pettigrew has told the secret.  So how did 
Hagrid get Harry from the wreckage?  Unless of course it was only 
James and Lilly's secret, in which case the spell was broken when 
they were killed.

Now that the secret keeper for 12 Grimauld Place is dead, will 
it be possible for anyone to find the house, other than those 
Dumbledore told before?  Or is the killing of the secret keeper 
the end of the fidelius charm?

le green dragon










From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 09:21:14 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:21:14 -0000
Subject: memory
In-Reply-To: <dmanoe+2ohl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmbtqa+d5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143533

CH3ed:
Howdy all. All the reminicense done over Thanksgiving family 
functions got me wondering... When a person extracts a memory to put 
away is extracted memory that the only copy of that memory? Nothing 
more of the event is left in the person's head? 

It seems to me that Snape put his worst memory away in the penseive 
when he was teaching Harry occlumency to prevent Harry from being 
able to see it if an accident like the "protego" incident where 
Snape's ligilimen rebounded on himself recurs. So that supports 'no 
original copy left in the head' theory. 

But then Slug retained the true memory about his horcrux chat with 
young LV even though he had already gave DD an altered one. Also 
we've seen that obliviated memory can be recovered (LV did that with 
Bertha Jorkins), but then obliviate charm's mechanics is probably 
different from using the wand to extract memory to put in a 
penseive. Any thoughts? :O)

CH3ed likes to keep his memories in his head.






From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Sun Nov 27 10:31:32 2005
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:31:32 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dmbfjs+84no@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmc1u4+drh3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143534

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" <whizbang121 at y...> wrote:

> Well, not all of it.  The thought that Snape is Draco's godfather is
> fuzzy and was never presented as canon.  

It's a thought that is higly popular in fanfiction and actually has no
base in canon. Actually, Chapter 2 in HBP makes it clear that there is
no such relationship. When Narcissa pleads with Snape she does not
refer once to such a relation, though that would be a very good point
in favour of her case. The argument she uses is him being his
favourite teacher, which though it may be flattering does not give any
moral obligation at all.

Gerry






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 27 13:55:27 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:55:27 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmb952+hlit@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmcdsf+chbi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143535

Potioncat:
> Oh, Isn't JKR lovely! Who expected the Gaunt-Riddle dynamics? For 
> that matter, who read the chapter title "House of Gaunt" and 
expected 
> that family! I was expecting a household of kings and kings to be. 
> So, aren't we all wondering what the twist is to the Snape family?

Ceridwen:
I thought the fact that Tobias appears to be a Muggle was the kicker 
in that one.  After the memory scene, who would have dreamed that 
Papa Snape was a Muggle?  While it could be Grandpa Prince, since 
wizards age slower than Muggles, most people I've messaged with 
thought it was Papa at the time.

And, with Snape in the DEs, and that slip of the tongue with Lily in 
the Pensieve scene, it just about clinched Pureblood Snape for 
everyone.  Only those of twisted enough minds would ever think that 
Snape had this sort of deep, dark secret (probably not to his 
contemporaries, though) lurking in his background.  When my second-
born and I were going through the list of possible candidates for HBP 
and I suggested Snape, she went off on all the reasons why it 
couldn't have been him.

Potioncat:
> Well, let's face it. We don't really know who was in that memory. 
Was 
> it Eileen? Harry doesn't register that Eileen (from her school 
photo) 
> was the woman he saw in Snape's memory, but that means nothing. Was 
> it Tobias? Could it have been Grandfather Prince? I suppose Eileen, 
> like Merope and Tonks was "weak" with love, but I doubt it.

Ceridwen:
If it's my scenario, which I do love but haven't married, then it 
would explain a cringing, sobbing Eileen.  She does love her husband, 
and cringes at the thought of something driving a wedge between 
them.  It doesn't make her magic weak from love.  It's a situation 
where magic is the culprit, as well as a situation that magic just 
can't solve.  Unless she decides to go the Merope route and use a 
love potion, or worse, she does Merope one better and uses the 
Imperio.  But I'm not going for that one.  I think the 'terrified' 
Eileen is terrified of losing her husband in that one, a purely 
human, whether WW or MW, response.

Potioncat:
> Eileen had enough contact with the Muggle world to meet and marry a 
> Muggle. Yet, little Severus will arrive at Hogwarts knowing more 
> curses than most 7th years. Lots of gaps here. Of course, one could 
> practice Dark Magic without being a Pureblood.

Ceridwen:
Eileen could have friends who are into the Dark Arts, as well as 
family who may well be.  Grandfathers often take grandsons and teach 
them things like fishing or woodworking, no reason why Grandpa Prince 
doesn't take a young Severus on his knee and teach him Dark Magic.  
And, I suppose it would be a funny party gag to some friends, or even 
to Eileen herself, to have a diminutive wizard performing Dark spells 
at a Wizarding party.

Potioncat:
> My personal speculation is that Eileen was expelled from Hogwarts 
and 
> was unable to do most magic, therefore was at a angry Muggle's 
mercy 
> in that scene.

Ceridwen:
Interesting speculation.  The HBP scenario certainly opens that whole 
scene up for much more speculation, doesn't it?
 
> >Ceridwen: 
*(snips following)*
> > love-match...
> > someone in the Prince family gave their blessing...
> > announcements were put into the paper...
> > pokes holes in the Pureblood Supremacist Princes, too...

Potioncat:
> I agree, and that makes it unlikely that it's Grandfather Prince. 
If 
> it is him, it's not the the marriage and child he's upset about. Of 
> course the two annoucements could have been placed by Eileen. They 
> were small...it wasn't big news, and it appears to have been a 
small, 
> or at least, unimportant wedding. But it was public knowledge.

Ceridwen:
It could have been the Princes' finances which dictated the size of 
the announcement.  When I got married the first time, all we could 
manage was the tiny announcement.  Eileen *apparently* married a 
working-class Muggle, from everything we can glean, which isn't 
much.  It's possible the Princes were from the same or similar social 
background.

Potioncat:
> I snipped your comment that the whole purpose of the announcement 
was 
> for Hermione to find...and it isn't some sort of clue. That could 
be 
> correct too. It could be that the Daily Prophet has some magical 
way 
> of knowing when a magical wedding  has taken place and therefore, 
> prints it.  Hmmm...so should we look for the Riddle-Gaunt wedding 
and 
> would the birth of Tom Riddle automatically appear?

Ceridwen:
I don't know how the Daily Prophet works, aside from what we saw with 
Rita Skeeter, and all the put-downs in OotP.  It's possible to print 
erroneous information, for instance.  But, I used to live in a small 
town, and they got birth announcement info directly from the 
hospital.  Mom had to sign a release, but after that, she and Dad, or 
just she alone, didn't have to do a thing.  Marriages were pretty 
much common knowledge, but I don't know how the paper got their 
info.  Just about every wedding in town, and in the two towns down 
the road, appeared.  The paper saw it as a public service to its 
readers (though, getting the details in a news report right, wasn't 
that big of a priority, it was a social rag first, a news rag second).

Potioncat:
> Bottom line...I don't have the slightest idea what is really going 
> on. But it doesn't seem to me that Severus Snape was raised with 
any 
> Pureblood ideology.

Ceridwen:
I think I do, but I know that I could be way off, too.  And, while he 
does seem to have been raised, or at least often exposed, to someone 
who thought Dark Magic was all right, that certainly doesn't equal a 
Pureblood ideology.  Completely agree.

Ceridwen.






From JLen1777 at aol.com  Sun Nov 27 11:12:12 2005
From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:12:12 EST
Subject: memory
Message-ID: <1e1.49aea051.30baee8c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143536

 
CH3ed wrote:
 
When a person extracts a memory to put 
away is extracted memory that  the only copy of that memory? Nothing 
more of the event is left in the  person's head? 

It seems to me that Snape put his worst memory away in  the pensieve 
when he was teaching Harry occlumency to prevent Harry from  being 
able to see it if an accident like the "protego" incident where  
Snape's ligilimen rebounded on himself recurs. So that supports 'no  
original copy left in the head' theory. 

But then Slug retained the  true memory about his horcrux chat with 
young LV even though he had already  gave DD an altered one. Also 
we've seen that obliviated memory can be  recovered (LV did that with 
Bertha Jorkins), but then obliviate charm's  mechanics is probably 
different from using the wand to extract memory to put  in a 
penseive. Any thoughts? :O)
 
 
Jaimee now:
 
A very interesting question, and one that made me start thinking more about  
memories and pensieves and such.  I think that memories in the WW must be  
just as slippery as they can be in the real world.   You used  good examples for 
each 'memory theory', and though I understand and enjoyed  your reasoning for 
Snape's removal of his memory during occlumency lesson's with  Harry to 
support 'no original copy left in the head' theory, I think it actually  shows the 
opposite.  
 
Snape carefully removes the memory before each lesson, so we can assume  that 
it is important to Snape that Harry not see this memory.  When Harry  does 
'slip' into the memory, and Snape finds him eavesdropping in the pensieve,  
would Snape have such a horrible reaction when he finds him if he did not RECALL  
what the memory was about?
 
I guess what I am saying is a person must retain at least an outline or  idea 
of the memory for a variety of reasons.  Snape removed the 'true' core  part 
of the memory in order to hide it from Harry, but Slughorn only removed the  
just of the memory and held on to the 'true' core part of it because he was  
ashamed of what it would show others.  Ultimately the memory holder has  control 
of what they retain and what they remove based on their own personal  
reasons. 
 
It also made me start thinking of The Worst Memory Chapter in OOTP in a  
different way.  Though this may have been brought up before I was on the  board, I 
have not noticed it since I have been here, but I would love to see  what 
people think:  Why would Snape be more afraid of Harry seeing this  memory, than, 
for instance, his memory of hearing Trelawney's prophesy, or  revealing it to 
Voldemort?  Wouldn't that be a memory that would be more  detrimental for 
Harry to hear?  I think this seems like it could lead to  some interesting 
conversation on why Snape felt this memory was so  important to hide from Harry.
 
Great question, and thanks for making me think about WW memories a little  
more deeply.
 
Jaimee



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 27 09:00:43 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:00:43 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series
In-Reply-To: <43888237.6020400@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dmbsjr+9flu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143537

> Bart:
> 	Did he kill Dumbledore? Was Dumbledore's hand unhealable 
because it was 
> magically damaged, or was it unhealable because he could no longer 
heal 
> from injuries? From (S/P)S, Chapter 8: "I can teach you how to bottle 
> fame, brew glory, even stopper death"
> 
>

Yes, if Snape's spell was the proximate cause of of DD's death, he not 
only killed Dumbledore, he murdered him in every legal and moral 
sense.  If DD was in fact dying it would not matter in any way, shape, 
form, or fashion.  If the situation was hopeless with regard to tactics 
it would not matter in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  If DD 
asked/begged/ordered Snape to kill him it would not matter in any way, 
shape, form, or fashion.

Now, if, as has been theorized by some, what happened was an elaborate 
ruse that went south in a catastrophic way, then Snape would have some 
workable defense.  But that is the only situation in which Snape would 
have a defense.


Lupinlore








From meriaugust at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 15:02:11 2005
From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:02:11 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP4, Horace Slughorn
In-Reply-To: <dltf4l+o89r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmchpj+9odm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143538

Just a few quick answers to Alla's excellent questions.
 
> QUESTIONS.
> 
snip 
> 2. When Albus says, "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the 
> dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been 
> enjoying," does he mean that in OOP Voldemort had no idea that 
Harry 
> had access to his thoughts and feelings? Wasn't it necessary for 
> Voldemort to know that Harry would receive the vision of Sirius in 
> order for his plan to lure Harry to MoM to be successful? In other 
> words, I thought that Voldemort was aware of the connection during 
> OOP. Are we supposed to think that he was not? How does Dumbledore 
> know that Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against Harry?

Meri - I think the implication is that LV was unaware of the 
connection until the snake incident in Order, and then he exploited 
it to get Harry to the MoM. But now that LV knows how painful it can 
be for him to possess Harry he probably doesn't care to do it 
anymore. And I would assume that Snape told DD about the Occlumency. 

snip
> 4. If Horace had been "out of touch with everybody for a year," 
how 
> does Dumbledore know that he is now hiding in charming village of 
> Budleigh Babberton?  

Meri - Because he's DD and he knows everything. I would imagine that 
with DD and Slughorn's long history that it would be pretty easy to 
make a logical guess at to where he would be hiding and what 
circumstances would suit him. Also, we know from Order that witches 
and wizards have to be registered to live in a Muggle neighborhood; 
perhaps there are not other magical folk in the area and that 
attracted DD's notice when Slughorn went missing. 

snip 
> 8. Would you agree that Slughorn seems to be *too* unconcerned 
about 
> Dumbledore's injury? If you disagree, why?
 
Meri - Too unconcerned for a normal person, maybe. But Slughorn is 
the definition of a Slytherin: if it doesn't have any affect on me, 
I don't care. 
snip 

> 10. We know that Harry does not ask questions about his parents 
even 
> in those rare situations when he has the chance to do so. Here 
Harry 
> meets the man who taught his mother, who seems to like his mother 
> very much and Harry is still not asking him any questions about 
> Lily. What do you think about it?

Meri - I think Harry is disinclined to like Slughorn, especially 
with the Muggleborn but still talented sentiments he seems to hold 
for Lily. Harry is as suspiscious of Slughorn as he is to the MoM's 
overtures which means he is beginning to pick up when people are 
going to try and exploit him for his fame and he will, gladly, have 
none of that. 

Meri 






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 27 15:40:10 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:40:10 -0000
Subject: Seeing magical concealment
In-Reply-To: <dmanoe+2ohl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmck0q+u2r2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143539

le green dragon:
> Is Harry's parents home still magically concealed?  With the 
> secret keeper still alive, and with one of the three people whose 
> secret it was still alive, the house should be invisible to all 
> except those whom Pettigrew has told the secret.  So how did 
> Hagrid get Harry from the wreckage?  Unless of course it was only 
> James and Lilly's secret, in which case the spell was broken when 
> they were killed.
> 
> Now that the secret keeper for 12 Grimauld Place is dead, will 
> it be possible for anyone to find the house, other than those 
> Dumbledore told before?  Or is the killing of the secret keeper 
> the end of the fidelius charm?

Ceridwen:
I was under the impression that once the secret has been breached, 
the charm is broken.  So when LV gets in and kills the Potters, the 
completed act of PP's betrayal breaks the charm.

I could be wrong.

Ceridwen.






From va32h at comcast.net  Sun Nov 27 14:51:51 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:51:51 -0000
Subject: SHIP Re: Harry and Ginny forever?
In-Reply-To: <dmbfak+39kh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmch67+90l5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143540

Alora wrote:
>
> I was mulling over the Harry/Ginny romance and I'm wondering if it 
> will make it.  Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for them, I think 
>it's great. But, how many people actually find their "soul mate"  
>that early in life?  

va32h: 
In real life, perhaps not. But in a fictional world the likelihodd 
of a pair of teenagers finding lasting love is not uncommon! And the 
wiazrding world is a very small one. Most British wizards attend 
Hogwarts - so unless a wizard marries a Muggle or travels abroad, it 
is likely that he or she will meet their future mate at Hogwarts. 

Alora wrote:
>My point is, does anyone else feel that 
> something bad might possibly happen to Ginny?  Is it too early for 
> them to be together?  When the Bill/Fleur engagement was discussed 
in 
> HBP, Molly thought they were rushing it.  But she said that it was 
> different for her and Arthur, because they were meant for each 
other.  
> Are Ginny and Harry meant for each other?  

va32h:

To answer in order: 
1)No, I don't think anything bad will happen to Ginny. She has 
already had her encounter with Voldemort.
2)Molly said it was "different" for herself and Arthur because 
parents always say things like that. "I did the same thing at your 
age, but you can't because my situation was different". She's just 
being an overprotective mom, and she doesn't like Fleur very much 
anyway. 
3.)Yes, the characters of Ginny and Harry are intended to be 
together - in JKR's interview with Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron she 
stated that she had always intended them to come together. Ginny is 
also the only female in Harry's inner circle who is available to 
him. Hermione is "intended" for Ron, and Luna is intended to be 
comic relief and not a romantic partner for any character. 

I suppose the epilogue could end with Harry going off to meet and 
fall in love with some new character we've never met before, but I 
don't think that is likely. 

va32h








From flyingmybroomstick at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 15:59:20 2005
From: flyingmybroomstick at yahoo.com (Samantha Thomas)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 07:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dumbledore as Gandalf the White? (some LOTR spoilers)
Message-ID: <20051127155920.6409.qmail@web32403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143541

Dear fellow list members,
     I do apologize for bringing this up if it has been brought up before, but with all this talk about DD still being alive, I was wondering about the DD/Gandalf connection from LOTR.  Obviously, every great series has to have its wizard and each fantasy draws from other franchises.  (Some more blatantly than others).  But if DD is truly dead (and in a sense, Gandalf was too), then who's to say he won't come back?  We are told after Harry' s run-in with the Mirror of the Erised in SS/PS by DD himself that there is no way to bring witches and wizards back from the dead.  So, obviously we dismiss this as a possibility forever, because if DD says it, it's law.  I'm not saying that they'd been planning to fake his death for that long, I'm just saying that perhaps there are advances in magic like there are advances in science.  
   
  Or perhaps the curse he's fighting on his hand is similar to the Balrog (that was what it was called, wasn't it?), something he's going to reach deep inside himself to defeat and come back whole, more powerful than before.  Or perhaps, in an Obi-Wan Kenobi sort of way, he had to let Snape kill him in front of Harry to make the reality of it all sink in, the urgentness of the situation and the utter evil of that man (I doubt that is the case).  But, either way, I don't believe DD was helpless.  
   
  Sincerely,
   
   
  Samantha 

		






From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Nov 27 16:57:30 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:57:30 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmcdsf+chbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmcohq+c2b7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143542

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...>
wrote:
 
> Potioncat:
> > Eileen had enough contact with the Muggle world to meet and marry a 
> > Muggle. Yet, little Severus will arrive at Hogwarts knowing more 
> > curses than most 7th years. Lots of gaps here. Of course, one could 
> > practice Dark Magic without being a Pureblood.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> Eileen could have friends who are into the Dark Arts, as well as 
> family who may well be.  Grandfathers often take grandsons and teach 
> them things like fishing or woodworking, no reason why Grandpa Prince 
> doesn't take a young Severus on his knee and teach him Dark Magic.  
> And, I suppose it would be a funny party gag to some friends, or even 
> to Eileen herself, to have a diminutive wizard performing Dark spells 
> at a Wizarding party.
> 

colebiancardi:
One of the ideas I had on why little Severus knew so much about the
dark arts when he started Hogwarts was that Eileen taught him, but not
because she was a Voldemort supporter.  She went to school with
Riddle, perhaps was in the same house(we don't know what house she was
sorted in - another mystery).  She would have seen his rise to power
and the way he fought those who opposed him.  My thought is that she
taught her son not only to defend himself against the dark arts -
which would explain why he knew so much about them - but also to use
them - as a means to fight fire with fire, if he was ever attacked.

The scene of the pensive could be misleading - if that is Tobias &
Eileen fighting, who knows what they were fighting about?  Could have
been the burnt dinner or something - highly doubtful.  Perhaps it was
that little Severus did some dark magic at a tender age and Tobias is
fighting over that with Eileen.  At any rate, I don't know if that
scene means that Eileen or Snape were ever abused by Tobias.  Snape
makes no mention of his mother or father, of course that would give
too much away.  However, we do not see him, outside of the calling
Lily a mudblood, that today's grown-up Snape is a pureblood supporter
or that he feels that half-bloods should not be taught in the
wizarding ways.  That would be hypocritical of him, as he is a
half-blood himself.  

JKR once stated that Snape was loved by someone - it could be
Dumbledore, but I like the idea that his mother loved him.  Or it
could be both.  It would be interesting to find out what happened to
his parents, which I don't believe it is the librarian, nor do I
believe that Flitch is his dad either.  I wonder if they were killed
or died tragically - come on Hermione, keep digging thru the old
copies of the Prophet! - and Snape found himself alone and that is why
he joined Voldemort initially - he had no friends other than those who
were in slytherian and they joined up.  

but as always, this is JMHO.

colebiancardi






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 27 17:01:02 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:01:02 -0000
Subject: Inconsistency and Incoherence  (was Dumbledore/Incompetent Adults)
In-Reply-To: <437B4AC4.90300@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dmcooe+5i3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143543

> Bart 
<SNIP>
> (note that this is a discussion of possibilities, and I will be 
> coming to no conclusion here):
> One problem with discussing the Harry Potter novels is switching 
back 
> and forth between treating the characters as real people, and 
treating 
> them as products of JKR's writing. I'm going to step into the 
latter for 
> a moment.
> 
> Often, especially when a writer is on a deadline, he or she will do 
> something for which I do not know the technical term (and there may 
not 
> be one); I generally call it writing AT a character rather than 
writing 
> the character. This occurs when a writer has a character do actions 
> which, when looked from outside the character, make superficial 
sense, 
> but, looking from inside the character's body, so to speak, 
actually do 
> not make sense at all (a MAJOR culprit of this was Dan Brown in THE 
DA 
> VINCI CODE). JKR steps into this every now and then, and this may 
be the 
> root cause of a lot of the behavior of the characters that has 
caused 
> much contention in this group (note that I am not simply 
attributing it 
> to general bad writing, as I am to a very specific form of bad 
writing). 
> Dumbledore's speech to the Dursleys probably fits into this mold; 
it 
> gives the reader satisfaction, but, when the reader attempts to 
look at 
> the scene from Dumbledore's point of view, it raises questions.
> 

Lupinlore:
This is a very interesting point, and one I've been thinking about 
over the last couple of weeks.  Let me offer a new, if somewhat 
arbitrary, construct to get at this from maybe a different angle.

I think the problem is one of CONSISTENCY and COHERENCE.  Now, these 
are related things, but not identical things.  Consistency is the 
tendency of a character (or a real person, for that matter) to react 
in similar ways to similar situations, or in the same way to the same 
situation whenever it is presented.  It is also a measure of how much 
a character's behavior matches what we have been assured to be that 
character's personality.  Coherence is a basic question of whether or 
not a character is believable, i.e. if that character "makes sense" 
as a real person on some quasi-intuitive level.   Both of these 
issues come into play with Harry Potter characters, particularly the 
adults, and particularly, probably, Dumbledore.

Now, like I say, consistency and coherence are not the same thing, 
or, more exactly, an INCONSISTENT character is not the same as an 
INCOHERENT character.  The reason for this is that humans are, in 
fact, somewhat inconsistent creatures.  We react differently to 
similar situations, because of any number of factors. We often behave 
in ways that are at least slightly at variance with what appears to 
be our general personality patterns. I guess a good test is the "real 
person test."  Would this behavior be believable, more or less, for a 
real person?

But, being INCONSISTENT, even though it is not the same as being 
INCOHERENT, is related to that state.  That is, even though humans 
aren't totally consistent in any way, they do tend to be largely 
consistent, especially if they are reacting honestly.  If a person is 
wildly inconsistent in dealing with situations or in their 
presentation, or in the way their behavior fits with their supposed 
personality, the immediate assumption they get from most observers is 
that they are being dishonest and/or manipulative.  If we are asked 
to accept very inconsistent behavior as being honest, then the 
character moves into incoherence.

Here is where JKR gets into trouble with a lot of her adults, and 
most particularly with Dumbledore.  In general, we are asked to 
believe that these are, by and large, very intelligent and caring 
people who nevertheless manage to be spectacularly incompetent and 
even abusive at crucial moments -- such as with regard to Ginny and 
the CoS or the failure to put confront Snape and put him firmly in 
his place.

Now, DD is extremely important for this, and Bart's mention about the 
Dursleys is one (but not the only) key issue.  We have two speeches 
from Dumbledore, one in OOTP and one in GoF, that simply aren't 
compatible in the view of a LOT of people.  Now, that, I think is 
what has led to a lot of Manipulative!Dumbledore speculation on this 
issue, since I think a very natural reaction to that kind of 
inconsistency is to preserve coherence of the character by assuming 
dishonesty and manipulative behavior -- i.e. that you have different 
speeches for different audiences because Dumbledore is deliberately 
trying to evoke specific reactions/results by telling partial 
untruths, or at the very least by being incredibly disingenuous.

Even leaving aside the speech in OOTP, the problem is very 
difficult.  I mean, you have a man who placed Harry with the 
Dursleys, having been well and fully warned what was likely to 
happen, and then proceeds to get mad because they behave in a manner 
fully consistent with all the evidence he had as to their character 
and and likely reactions.  He also, even leaving aside OOTP, seems to 
have been well-aware of Harry's predicament, to have made no attempt 
to intervene for some fifteen years, and then to act shocked and 
indignant when he finally gets around to a belated confrontation.  If 
he cared so much about Harry where was he the last fifteen years?  If 
he is indeed so formidably intelligent and even wise, as we have been 
assured he is, exactly what was he THINKING would happen?  Similar 
questions arise with regard to Snape issues.  He has more than twenty-
five years experience with Snape and Snape's relationship with James 
Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Harry Potter.  He even takes 
advantage of Snape's feelings to goad Snape into near apoplexy at the 
end of PoA, giving every sign of being highly amused at seeing the 
man shaking with helpless rage.  And yet he thought, when push came 
to shove, Snape could overcome all of that and establish a workable 
relationship with Harry?  Where has he been the last five years?  
Where has he been the last TWENTY-FIVE years?  Here is a man we have 
been assured is very wise and extremely caring and extraordinarily 
intelligent who turns out, however you cut it and irregardless of 
whether Snape is DDM! or whatever, to have been an enormous and 
pathetic fool with regard to Snape's feelings for James and Harry.  
In other words, DD is shown to be incredibly inconsistent both in how 
he behaves in given situations and how his behavior fits with what we 
have been told is his personality.

Given that inconsistency, the natural reaction is to preserve the 
coherence of his character by postulating that he is sometimes being 
dishonest and manipulative.  This is, I think, an instinctive 
application of the "real person" standard.  That is, if faced with 
this behavior in a real person, almost all of us would immediately 
assume we are dealing with manipulative and dishonest policies.

However, and here, at last, is the rub, I don't think JKR intends for 
us to react that way.  I think she pretty clearly wants us to take DD 
as being honest in all his various speeches and protests.  And there, 
faced with such wild inconsistency that we are asked to take as being 
based in honesty, then the character bids strongly to become 
incoherent.


Lupinlore










From lolita_ns at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 17:21:31 2005
From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:21:31 -0000
Subject: What about Norbert?
Message-ID: <dmcpur+f98c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143544

I don't know whether someone has tackled this before or nor, but here 
I go. Are there any ideas about Norbert the dragon's further function 
in HP saga? I know that he was important in PS in terms of the 
detention in the Forbidden Forest and the large amount of points lost 
by Harry & co, but if that was the sole purpose of the whole episode, 
why introduce a *dragon*? It could have been any other dangerous 
creature...

So, do you think that he is to reappear? If not, I believe that the 
whole dragon episode has a loose end hanging about it. If not, what 
could his purpose be?

I can think of a couple of things:

1. Are we finally going to learn about other uses of dragon's blood? 
(I don't think that Harry will be doing much oven cleaning in Year 7)

2. If a Napoleonic battle does take place in HP7 (which I don't think 
will happen, but anything's possible, and I'm certainly not the one 
writing the story), maybe several species will take part in it... 
Giants, dragons, maybe even a House-elves army (just imagine Dobby as 
a general :) ) 

3. Maybe some sort of a first task re-iteration is to happen? Rowling 
*has* used elements of earlier books in her latter instalments, after 
all... 

Any other thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Lolita






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 27 18:02:18 2005
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 27 Nov 2005 18:02:18 -0000
Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat 
Message-ID: <1133114538.21.36168.m25@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143545


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Weekly Chat 

Date: Sunday, November 27, 2005 
Time: 1:00PM CST (GMT-06:00) 

Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7
pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer
Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as
long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat"
in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to
http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of
the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room,
type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If
you have any trouble, let the elves know: 
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 

Hope to see you there! 

 





From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 18:32:23 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:32:23 -0000
Subject: memory
In-Reply-To: <1e1.49aea051.30baee8c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dmcu3n+9og2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143546

Jaimee wrote: <snip>
"I guess what I am saying is a person must retain at least an 
outline or idea of the memory for a variety of reasons. Snape 
removed the 'true' core part of the memory in order to hide it from 
Harry, but Slughorn only removed the just of the memory and held on 
to the 'true' core part of it because he was ashamed of what it 
would show others. Ultimately the memory holder has control of what 
they retain and what they remove based on their own personal 
reasons."

CH3ed:
I agree. :O) I'm thinking that Snape would remember what the memory 
he removed was about, but he would not recall any detail of the 
incident with the Marauders and Lily after their O.W.L.S as long as 
that memory has not been put back in his head. So removing the 
memory by wanding it out doesn't cause general amnesia, you still 
retain the table of contents but the particular content is no longer 
there. If the removed memory is destroyed before you can put it back 
in your head, then you will remember that you have removed the 
memory about an event, but you wouldn't be able to recall what 
happened in that event again. In which case you've better store the 
removed memories in container with unbreakable and fire-proofing 
charms, ay? ;O)  


Jaimee wrote:
"Why would Snape be more afraid of Harry seeing this memory, than, 
for instance, his memory of hearing Trelawney's prophesy, or 
revealing it to Voldemort? Wouldn't that be a memory that would be 
more detrimental for Harry to hear? I think this seems like it could 
lead to some interesting conversation on why Snape felt this memory 
was so important to hide from Harry." <snip>

CH3ed:
Well, it is possible that there were other memories in that penseive 
beside the one that Harry saw. Snape pulled Harry back out just as 
that "after the OWLS" memory was ending. Had DD pulled Harry out of 
his penseive at the end of Karkaloff's trial then Harry (and we) 
wouldn't know that the memories of Bagman's and Crouch Jr (and 
Bella)'s trials were there also.

Also, if that was the only memory in the penseive, it is possible 
that Snape (being as unfair and mean as he is) wouldn't care if 
Harry thinks Snape got the better of James in the end (playing a 
part in James' and Lily's death). The memory that Harry saw; on the 
other hand, showed James and his gang getting the best of Snape. 
That would be a bit childish and not well prioritized of Snape, but 
then when it comes to Harry and the Marauders Snape's hatred has a 
way of fogging his judgment. 


Jaimee:
"Great question, and thanks for making me think about WW memories a 
little more deeply."

CH3ed:
Thanks! I think it was likely a fluke on my part. :O) I'm usually on 
the trivial end of the spectrum.







From bob.oliver at cox.net  Sun Nov 27 08:41:04 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:41:04 -0000
Subject: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dltuv9+shen@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmbrf0+amp1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143547

Betsy Hp <horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> Betsy Hp:
> However, this is an interesting tangent, so I'll bite <g>.  
> First and foremost, Snape *never* tried to poison Trevor.  If 
> he had attempted to do so, Trevor would be dead (or sporting a 
> third eyeball or whatever the poison was meant to do).  
> *Neville* was the one preparing to poison his pet.

On Snape's orders.  Sadistic, cruel, and totally reprehensible.  I 
simply do not understand how you defend this evil (and yes, I do 
literally mean evil) behavior on Snape's part.  Please enlighten me, 
because I simply can see no way to interpret this except for utter 
sadism and cruelty, and an attempt to poison a boy's beloved pet.

> Snape was standing by with the antidote.  And Snape's 
> instructions to Neville were *not* on how to create an effective 
> poison.  The potion Snape assigned to the class would not have 
> adversely harmed Trevor at all.  As we saw when Trevor took it.  
> There was a bit of psychological pressure being put on Neville, 
> but Trevor came out unscathed.

Sigh.  I must confess to being completely puzzled.  It is obvious 
is that scene that Snape is being reprehensible and sadistically 
cruel.  I simply do not understand how anyone, especially someone 
who so detests seeing the weak targeted, can defend him.

I must say, it also speaks to Dumbledore's idiotic policies that 
Snape was not put firmly and publically in his place after this 
deplorable episode.

Lupinlore








From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 19:26:30 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:26:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore as Gandalf the White? (some LOTR spoilers)
In-Reply-To: <20051127155920.6409.qmail@web32403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmd196+6km2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143548

Samantha wrote:<snip> 
" I was wondering about the DD/Gandalf connection from LOTR. 
Obviously, every great series has to have its wizard and each 
fantasy draws from other franchises. (Some more blatantly than 
others). But if DD is truly dead (and in a sense, Gandalf was too), 
then who's to say he won't come back? We are told after Harry' s run-
in with the Mirror of the Erised in SS/PS by DD himself that there 
is no way to bring witches and wizards back from the dead. So, 
obviously we dismiss this as a possibility forever, because if DD 
says it, it's law. I'm not saying that they'd been planning to fake 
his death for that long, I'm just saying that perhaps there are 
advances in magic like there are advances in science."
<snip>


**LOTR and Simarilions spoiler**
CH3ed:
I think it is worth noting that LOTR is tied to The Simarilions 
which has a religious theme (which is one of the reasons I love 
reading the mostly secular LOTR but not more religious Simarilion). 
Gandalf (who is like a prophet figure)did die but the ainu(?can't 
quite recall the word, you know, the god figure) sent him back to 
fulfill his mission. I don't think JKR would introduce a god-like 
entity or concept of reincarnation to the HP series. Tho she does 
write that there is a place you would "move on" to after you die 
(unless your fear of death causes you to become a ghost).

 I think that DD is really dead and gone is the most consistent 
conclusion as Harry is due to face his own destiny himself (and I 
think the appearance of DD's portrait in the Headmaster's Office 
seals the deal). It is also more consistent with DD's character to 
have willingly and selflessly died to save others (Malfoy, Snape, 
Harry), rather than just faking his own death. There may be advances 
in magic toward bringing back life but I don't think DD would go for 
it (like he could have use dark arts but wouldn't, paraphrasing 
McGonagal's PS/SS comment about DD being too noble to use LV's kind 
of power).

If anything DD is a gallant gryffindor and not a plotting slytherin. 
DD coming back to life after fighting off a curse would make book 7 
a story of DD's triumph rather than Harry's final battle with LV 
which I think it quite unlikely. IMO, JKR is not an overprotective 
mom and seems bent on being as realistic possible in her writing. 
She has not pulled any punch so far so I can't see her doing so in 
the last book by bringing DD back.

DD's death was quite jarring to me because it was so simple for such 
a larger than life figure. It is just like real life. A highly 
decorated warrior can survive 3 wars and a sunk ship and multiple 
battle wounds just to die of a common flu. Makes one appreciate the 
fragility of life better, ay? :O)

CH3ed still toasting his orange root beer to the late Albus 
Dumbledore and very glad that Harry did tell DD he told Scrimgor he 
is DDM. 






From bartl at sprynet.com  Sun Nov 27 19:14:04 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:14:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Ginny forever?
In-Reply-To: <dmbfak+39kh@eGroups.com>
References: <dmbfak+39kh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438A057C.1040408@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143549

alora67 wrote:
> I was mulling over the Harry/Ginny romance and I'm wondering if 
> it will make it.  Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for them, I 
> think it's great. But, how many people actually find their "soul 
> mate" that early in life?  <snip> 

Bart:
I have no idea how British culture is on this point, but, from an 
American cultural point of view, Ginny is the equivalent of the 
"girl next door", and therefore, at least by literary tradition, 
the most appropriate marriage material for Harry, assuming, of 
course, that he survives.

	Bart







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 19:46:47 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:46:47 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dmbsjr+9flu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmd2f7+l9k4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143550

Lupinlore wrote:
> Yes, if Snape's spell was the proximate cause of of DD's death, he
not only killed Dumbledore, he murdered him in every legal and moral
sense.  If DD was in fact dying it would not matter in any way, shape,
form, or fashion.  If the situation was hopeless with regard to
tactics it would not matter in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  If
DD asked/begged/ordered Snape to kill him it would not matter in any
way,  shape, form, or fashion.
> 
> Now, if, as has been theorized by some, what happened was an
elaborate ruse that went south in a catastrophic way, then Snape would
have some workable defense.  But that is the only situation in which
Snape would  have a defense.

Carol responds:
Unless, of course, the WW's legal system operates differently from
American military justice, as I rather expect that it does. And if
Snape were arrested rather than killed, he would be in a perfect
position to do some plea bargaining, as he would know a great deal
about Voldemort and the Death Eaters (assuming that any are still at
large).

I *do* think it will matter that Snape had no choice but to kill
Dumbledore or die himself--and in so doing allow the DEs to murder
Dumbledore, Draco, and possibly Harry and to roam Hogwarts freely
(after Fenrir Greyback had savaged Dumbledore's body). There are, of
course, degrees of murder (at least in the RW)--probably second
degree, in this instance, as the killing apparently wasn't
premeditated, or possibly voluntary manslaughter as opposed to murder,
as well as extenuating circumstances that would affect the sentence,
even if they didn't affect the verdict. [It *would* matter whether
Snape used Avada Kedavra, which *always* kills the victim (unless he's
HP or Voldemort) or another curse that merely sent DD over the
battlements but would not necessarily result in the death of such a
powerful wizard--unless he *chose* to die from other causes on the way
down. It certainly matters to some readers, including me.]

It all depends, not on what we as readers firmly believe or hope will
happen, but on what JKR decides Snape's fate will be (and how she
defines WW justice, assuming that he survives to stand trial). Whether
we consider that fate (or that sentence) to be deserved or not,
whether we find it intellectually and emotionally satisfying or not,
will still depend on our reading of Snape. Even if, as I fully expect,
JKR shows Snape to have been loyal to Dumbledore all along, even in
the tower scene and afterwards, readers will still differ in their
attitudes toward and their feelings about Snape and the fate JKR
chooses to assign him. I, for one, will feel cheated and betrayed if
he is condemned to a life sentence in Azkaban or worse, has his soul
sucked out by a Dementor (not likely with the Dementors outside MoM
control, fortunately). I *would* be happy if, after helping Harry in
some way, he came to an understanding with Harry--and with Lupin, his
fellow DADA curse victim, with whom he has a lot in common if he could
only see it. (If, however, Snape goes OoC to apologize to Harry for
"abusing" him, I'll believe that JKR has lost all artistic integrity
and knuckled under to the wishes of the PC contingent. But that will,
of course, be only my opinion.)

Carol, expecting that she and Lupinlore will be equally surprised by
JKR's revelations about Snape in Book 7 and certain that at least one
of us will be severely disappointed in the outcome of the Snape arc








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Nov 27 21:15:14 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:15:14 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmcdsf+chbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmd7l2+7bo3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143551

 
> Ceridwen:
> I thought the fact that Tobias appears to be a Muggle was the 
kicker 
> in that one.  After the memory scene, who would have dreamed that 
> Papa Snape was a Muggle? 

Potioncat:
Oh, you're right Tobias being a Muggle was a kicker. Now working out 
the shouting scene is the trick!
 
> Ceridwen:
> If it's my scenario, which I do love but haven't married, then it 
> would explain a cringing, sobbing Eileen.  She does love her 
husband, 
> and cringes at the thought of something driving a wedge between 
> them.  It doesn't make her magic weak from love.  It's a situation 
> where magic is the culprit, as well as a situation that magic just 
> can't solve.  

Potioncat:
I like this idea, and hadn't thought of it before, but it does bring 
up the rather unpleasant vision of Samantha cringing before Darren.  
I know! It's JKR's satire on that old  US sitcom "Betwitched" now 
it's the WW drama, "Ensnared." 

> 
> Ceridwen:
> It could have been the Princes' finances which dictated the size of 
> the announcement.  When I got married the first time, all we could 
> manage was the tiny announcement.  Eileen *apparently* married a 
> working-class Muggle, from everything we can glean, which isn't 
> much.  It's possible the Princes were from the same or similar 
social 
> background.

Potioncat:
I think it's very likely they were from a similar background. I'm not 
sure if marriage announcements are charged by the word or not. And 
I'm sure it varies. My hometown paper prints whatever is submitted by 
the bride's family...within certain guidelines. Nothing submitted, 
nothing printed.


In Post 143542

> colebiancardi:
> One of the ideas I had on why little Severus knew so much about the
> dark arts when he started Hogwarts was that Eileen taught him, but 
not
> because she was a Voldemort supporter.  She went to school with
> Riddle, perhaps was in the same house(we don't know what house she 
was
> sorted in - another mystery).  She would have seen his rise to power
> and the way he fought those who opposed him.  My thought is that she
> taught her son not only to defend himself against the dark arts -
> which would explain why he knew so much about them - but also to use
> them - as a means to fight fire with fire, if he was ever attacked.

Potioncat:
I'm not sure how many people understand that LV was Tom Riddle. But 
you're right, Eileen would have overlapped TR at school and may know 
it's the same person...assuming she was still alive when he rose to 
power.

Slughorn was fairly indifferent to Dark Arts if you ask me. He 
commented that wizards of a certain calibre were drawn to them. He 
states that DD is adamant that certain magic not be taught. If Eileen 
was a Slytherin, she probably had ample opportunity to learn Dark 
Arts.
> 
Colebiancardi:
> At any rate, I don't know if that
> scene means that Eileen or Snape were ever abused by Tobias.  Snape
> makes no mention of his mother or father, of course that would give
> too much away.  

Potioncat:
It looks possible that it was one of many times, since this is a book 
and the scene has to be important. On the other hand, we're all 
looking for reasons for Adult Snape to be the way he is. Abuse is one 
possible explanation. JKR may have had a very different reason to 
show us that image.

Colebiancardi:
It would be interesting to find out what happened to
> his parents, which I don't believe it is the librarian, nor do I
> believe that Flitch is his dad either.  I wonder if they were killed
> or died tragically - come on Hermione, keep digging thru the old
> copies of the Prophet! - and Snape found himself alone and that is 
why he joined Voldemort initially - he had no friends other than 
those who were in slytherian and they joined up.

Potioncat:
Not the librarian, not Filch. Agreed. I will eat a copy of a HP book 
if Irma is Eileen. (Not one of mine, though.) There's an idea, what 
if something did happen to his parents and that caused him to end up 
with the DEs? Or what if he joined up but was always DD's spy? OK, 
sorry, I really am speculating now!  







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 21:55:35 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:55:35 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmd7l2+7bo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmda0n+p3ii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143552

> Potioncat:
> I think it's very likely they were from a similar background. I'm not 
> sure if marriage announcements are charged by the word or not. And 
> I'm sure it varies. My hometown paper prints whatever is submitted by 
> the bride's family...within certain guidelines. Nothing submitted, 
> nothing printed. <snip>

Carol responds:
I've probably snipped too much here, but in any case, the newspaper I
worked for when I was young (summer job between high school and
college) printed both birth announcements and wedding announcements
free as a matter of public record. You could also submit a more
detailed announcement (with a photo, if desired) by filling out a
from. No charge either way. After all, it wasn't an ad. It was a
public service/local news. If the Daily Prophet operates the same way,
the Princes' economic status is not a factor.

My problem is that I can't imagine a wedding announcement in the Daily
Prophet announcing that the husband was a Muggle. What a strange thing
to do! I doubt that blood status was a standard part of the
announcements: "James Potter, pureblood, of __________ married Lily
Evans, Muggleborn, of Little Whinging, Surrey, on the 8 June, 1978 (or
whatever). I think it the anouncement was just a plot device JKR used
to identify Snape as a half-blood, with his mother as the witch.

I also have a problem with the flash the hook-nosed man in Snape's
memory being Tobias if he's willing to have his name (complete with
his status as Muggle) announced in a WW newspaper and allows his wife
to keep her old Potions book and wand. (If Sevvie learned all those
spells before his first year at Hogwarts, he was probably using
someone else's wand since kids don't receive their first wand till
they're eleven. Either that or he learned a lot very fast in the not
quite eight months between his eleventh birthday and his first day at
Hogwarts.) So either Tobias was a very tolerant Muggle whose wife was
openly teaching her prodigy of a son to use a wide variety of hexes
(some of which he may have invented himself) or Tobias was dead or
gone or someone other than Eileen taught little Severus to do magic
I'm guessing he learned some potions before entering school as well as
spells since his mother kept her Potions book (and possibly some of
those leather-bound volumes in Snape's front room at Spinner's End
were hers, or her parents', as well.). 

I keep pointing out, and no one else seems to think it's important,
that Harry, with his experience of Muggles, would have recognized the
man in the memory as a Muggle if he was one. Wizards wear robes;
Muggles wear Muggle clothes--except in the films. And the narrator
says nothing about a Muggle man shouting at a witch, only a hook-nosed
man shouting at a cowering woman. Harry would have expected the people
in Snape's memories (including the laughing girl) to be witches and
wizards and would have noticed if a Muggle popped in there. 

I don't think we have sufficient information to draw any conclusions
about Eileen Prince's blood status or the financial situation of her
family. At any rate, the teenage Severus may wear grey underwear, but
the narrator says nothing about shabby robes or anything that would
indicate poverty or penury similar to the Weasleys'.

Carol, who can't imagine a witch cowering in fear of any Muggle,
abusive or otherwise







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov 27 22:04:08 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:04:08 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore as Gandalf the White? (some LOTR spoilers)
In-Reply-To: <dmd196+6km2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdago+u749@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143553

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" <h2so3f at y...> wrote:

CH3ed:
> I think it is worth noting that LOTR is tied to The Simarilions 
> which has a religious theme (which is one of the reasons I love 
> reading the mostly secular LOTR but not more religious Simarilion). 
> Gandalf (who is like a prophet figure)did die but the ainu(?can't 
> quite recall the word, you know, the god figure) sent him back to 
> fulfill his mission. I don't think JKR would introduce a god-like 
> entity or concept of reincarnation to the HP series. Tho she does 
> write that there is a place you would "move on" to after you die 
> (unless your fear of death causes you to become a ghost).

Geoff:
There is a religious theme underlying all the books; they are more 
obvious in "The Silmarillion" because in the first 
section "Ainulindal?", we see Tolkien setting up the world system for 
his created world.

Eru, The One, created the Ainur. The greatest of these were the Valar 
and each Vala had Maiar, lesser angelic beings, to be their helpers. 
Sauron, for example, was the servant of Melkor/Morgoth. Gandalf was a 
Maia - one of the Istari (Wizards) who took on human form to work in 
Middle-Earth.

CH3ed:
>  I think that DD is really dead and gone is the most consistent 
> conclusion as Harry is due to face his own destiny himself (and I 
> think the appearance of DD's portrait in the Headmaster's Office 
> seals the deal). It is also more consistent with DD's character to 
> have willingly and selflessly died to save others (Malfoy, Snape, 
> Harry), rather than just faking his own death. There may be 
advances 
> in magic toward bringing back life but I don't think DD would go 
for 
> it (like he could have use dark arts but wouldn't, paraphrasing 
> McGonagal's PS/SS comment about DD being too noble to use LV's kind 
> of power).

Geoff:
In a sense, Gandalf didn't die. Maiar are immortal; he had to leave 
his human form after the battle with the Balrog until sent back. 
There is a parallel here with Harry in that, "as Harry is due to face 
his own destiny himself", so is Frodo. He does not know until after 
the Ring is cast into the fire at the Sammath Naur that Gandalf has 
returned to Middle-Earth.

I think I agree with your analysis that Dumbledore will not return 
because I believe that JKR has commented that no one will return from 
the dead. Harry, like Frodo, will have to find other helpers to guide 
him along the way. He will need his own "Sam" and "Faramir" and even 
his own "Gollum"....






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Sun Nov 27 22:05:47 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:05:47 -0000
Subject: Pulling Off Good Snape? WAS Re: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dmap41+5uuj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdajr+9fkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143554

Lucianam:
<SNIP>
> But I suppose in the end Snape might be revealed as loyal to
> Dumbledore (I think that will be more difficult to write, though),
> or as a truly evil man determined to surpass Voldemort and become
> the next Dark Lord. Anything Snape goes.

<le_green_dragon wrote:
>
<snipped>
> Are you suggesting that Snape killed Dumbledore because he 
realised he
> was dying anyway and that there was no way Snape could fight his 
way
> passed the DEs in time to get his potions kit and save ADs life?


zgirnus wrote:
>
<snipped>
> Hatred and revulsion, actually. Which, we must assume, are the > 
emotions
> which twisted Harry's face in the cave when, 'hating himself, > 
repulsed by what he was doing', Harry poured the potion down > 
Dumbledore's
> throat. The narrator tells us how Snape looks, we have to 
determine > why.


Lucianam:

Well, my own opinion on Snape is that he's more likely to be loyal 
to Voldemort, but I admit 'anything Snape goes'. By that I mean 
Snape is, IMO, the biggest Question Mark in the books. He killed 
Dumbledore (apparently - I've read theories questioning even that) 
but that is no definite proof of his evilness - we don't know why DD 
was pleading, we don't know what was going on between the two of 
them in HBP... We actually don't know what was going on in a very 
large part of HBP, by the way. We don't know much about Snape's 
past, either. 

I think it's too late for JKR to take the 'good Snape' rout now, not 
because of his Avada Kedrava-ing Dumbledore, but because of his 
extensive answers to Bellatrix in Chapter 2. It's just too difficult 
to pull it off properly now. Of course JKR may do it, anyway.But I 
still think it's hard, I went on about it in my original post. If 
JKR decides to 'show' us how Snape had different motivations than he 
gave Bellatrix, that might take too much space in Book 7, and if JKR 
goes through each and every question again, answering them from 
a 'Loyal-to-Dumbledore-Snape' point of veiw, it'll be boring.

It's funny how posting makes one think. I'm going through the 
questions on my mind now and trying to answer them from a DDM!Snape 
perspective. Let's see (to save time, I'll just list the answers), 
so instead of...

a) taking a teacher's job at Hogwarts on Voldy's orders; 
b) not trying to find Voldy because he suspected him finished;
c) staying at Hogwarts to profit from DD's protection and thus 
escape Azkaban;
d) stopping Quirrel from getting the stone because he didn't know 
Voldy was in the back of Q's head;
e) not apparating instantly in the graveyard so as to ensure 
Dumbledore's trust and keep his place at Hogwarts;
f) Not joining the battle of the MoM so as not to blow his cover;
g) Not killing Harry for suspecting him of being a potential new 
Dark Lord and to avoid doing such a suspicious thing under DD's nose

we could have (I'm sure JKR could come up with something better, I'm 
just cooking stuff up) ...

a) exact same thing, really. When Snape sought the teaching job he 
was still a Death Eater. 
b) not trying to find Voldy because ... he was no longer loyal to 
him. According to DD, when Snape found out Voldemort killed the 
Potters, he felt great remorse and that was possibly the reason why 
he returned (to the right side, we might assume).
c) exact the same thing, again, I think... Even if Snape had 
sincerely turned his back on Voldemort, it was only DD's word and 
protection that cleared his name with the Wizengamot.
d) stopping Quirrel because he was genuinely defending the stone and 
possibly suspected Q was a DE or a dark wizard? (pretty lame, this 
one)
e) Aha!!!!!! I actually have a good explanation for this one. I 
think Voldemort didn't question Snape's loyalty for not apparating 
in the graveyard, once he learned Snape was at Hogwarts. Perhaps, 
unlike Bellatrix, Voldemort has read 'Hogwarts, a History', and 
knows it's impossible to Apparate/Disapparate from Hogwarts grounds. 
So I think this particular point is neutral. Regardless of being 
loyal to Voldemort or Dumbledore, he could never had Apparated to 
Voldemort's side once he felt the Dark Mark burn in his arm.
f) exact same thing. Loyal to Dumbledore Snape couldn't have battled 
in the MoM either, it would have blown his cover as a spy if he 
fought alongside the Order.
g) if we believe in 'good Snape', his reasons for not killing Harry 
are , obviously, that he's good, and the fact that he has a Life 
debt to James.

Funny. Most of the things he answered Bellatrix are true regardless 
of Snape's loyalties. Actually, none of that proves anything... And 
once you know what is his true loyaty, the real answers are pretty 
much obvious or easy to explain.

I'll eat my words from my previous post. I don't think it's so 
difficult for JKR to pull off Good Snape!!!! That doesn't mean I 
think he's good, though, I only think we have proof both ways.

Snape is one tough cookie to break!
Lucianam








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 22:10:58 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:10:58 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dmd2f7+l9k4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdati+o741@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143555


> Lupinlore wrote:
> > Yes, if Snape's spell was the proximate cause of of DD's death, 
he
> not only killed Dumbledore, he murdered him in every legal and 
moral
> sense. <snip> 
> > Now, if, as has been theorized by some, what happened was an
> elaborate ruse that went south in a catastrophic way, then Snape 
would
> have some workable defense.  But that is the only situation in 
which
> Snape would  have a defense.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Unless, of course, the WW's legal system operates differently from
> American military justice, as I rather expect that it does. 

a_svirn:
You can say it again. Don't we all know how the WW's legal system 
operates? Sending people to Azkaban without a trial and/or using 
only the flimsiest of evidence as a pretext. Messing with other 
persons' minds without by-your-leave just because they happen to be 
muggle. Passing the legislation designed to support slave-holding 
and all sorts of discrimination.  But what the magical legislation, 
imperfect though it is, has to say to anything? Even if Snape can 
get away with a murder under the WW's Law it doesn't alter the fact 
that he committed one.









From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 22:15:12 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:15:12 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dmbfjs+84no@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdb5g+70q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143556

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" <whizbang121 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" 
<muellem at b...>
> wrote:
> > > Whiz:
> > > It's not so much interpretation as looking at the scene from 
> > > Snape's PoV.


> > Colebiancardi: 
> > And that is still interpretation. We don't know Snape's POV. I 
could
> > state that Snape's POV is that he is terrified of Mad-Eye. That 
he 
> > doesn't know it is really Barty Jr and that we do know that the 
real
> > Mad-Eye is paranoid ? snip
 
> Whiz:
> But that "interpretation" completely ignores a couple of things we
> know.  For example, we know that Snape is capable of Legilimency 
and
> highy skilled in Occlumency.  When he thought he was dealing with 
the
> real Moody on the stairs, he was angry and self righteous.  It was
> after the staring match that Snape's attitude suddenly changed. 

Ginny343:
Okay, maybe something happened between them on the stairs, but I 
really don't think Snape knew about Moody/Crouch Jr.  Later in GoF, 
in potions class, Snape (quietly, so no one else can hear) accuses 
Harry of stealing Boomslang skin (and Gillyweed).  Harry assumes he 
is talking about when Hermione stole the Boomslang skin in their 2nd 
year.  Of course, we find out later that he was talking about a more 
recent stealing of Boomslang.  If Snape had figured out that Moody 
was really Crouch Jr. (or just that he was not the real Moody), he 
would have known fake!Moody stole the Boomslang skin.  He would not 
have accused Harry.  He might have still accused him of taking the 
Gillyweed.  But if he had already figured out that Moody was not who 
he claimed to be, I don't think he would be letting Harry know that 
someone was stealing Boomslang skin.  

Ginny343

-snip-







From lealess at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 22:17:48 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:17:48 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmda0n+p3ii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdbac+env4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143557

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
wrote:
>
> Carol, who can't imagine a witch cowering in fear of any Muggle,
> abusive or otherwise
>

Merope Gaunt was a witch who feared something from a Muggle, the loss
of love.  She could have conceivably forced Tom Riddle Sr. to stay
with her, even after she revealed herself as a witch.  She did not. 
Apparently, she instead chose to give up magic, her son, and her life.

It could have been similar for Eileen Snape, though not identical.  I
think one-sided love=loss of power for witches is in the story for a
reason.  Additionally, I believe JKR experienced domestic violence and
has worked to publicize the issue, so there may be an element of that
in the story as well, beyond Merope's story.

Without elaborating here, I can certainly see Snape coming from a
household where there was domestic violence.

lealess







From ginny343 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 22:41:07 2005
From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:41:07 -0000
Subject: Breaking the James/Snape bond
Message-ID: <dmdcm3+b2kh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143558

In PoA, DD tells Harry:

"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 . . ."

This being true, James and Snape must have had the same bond.  

DD continues:

"This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry." (PoA, 
427, Am. ver.)

So what exactly happens with this deep magic, impenetrable bond when 
the wizard who was saved is responsible for the death of the one who 
saved him?

What happens when Snape relates the prophecy to LV and causes LV to 
go after and kill James, the wizard who saved Snape's life?  


Ginny343, who has decided "for now" to agree that while some DEs 
knew about Peter, Snape did not.  








From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 22:48:46 2005
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:48:46 -0000
Subject: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmcohq+c2b7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdd4e+nohg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143559

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> 
wrote:
> The scene of the pensive could be misleading - if that is Tobias &
> Eileen fighting, who knows what they were fighting about?  

<snip>

> At any rate, I don't know if that scene means that Eileen or Snape 
> were ever abused by Tobias.  Snape makes no mention of his mother 
> or father, of course that would give too much away.  

Well, I like to speculate as much as anyone, but Occam's razor would 
seem to indicate that the woman being yelled at is his mother, the 
person doing the yelling (with the hook nose) is his father, and the 
small boy cowering in the corner is Snape.  

We're supposed to get an indication here through this scene that 
Snape does come from a background in which he has seen at least some 
emotional abuse.  

But Snape borrowed DD's pensieve so he could remove a variety of 
memories that he didn't want Harry to see.  If his entire history 
was swamped with such memories, one would think that would be hard 
to hide under any circumstances.  

I think much of the time we think harder about these things than JKR 
herself.  The pensieve scenes merely are JKR's way of fleshing out 
his background and character.  She wants us to know that:  

His father was a severe person
He had a rather unhappy childhood, and much of the time he was
     bored and alone  
As a teenager he was tormented by his peers, most specifically by 
     James Potter and Sirius Black

There are of course other elements as well.  "The Prank," and now 
the revelations about his paternity and the fact that he grew up 
(and probably remains) poorer than the Weasleys.

Those elements are enough to explain his character.  No one hates a 
bunch of teenagers more than someone who has been notoriously abused 
by them in his own youth.  

These things seem to me things that we can assume about him at this 
point.   

> However, we do not see him, outside of the calling Lily a 
> mudblood, that today's grown-up Snape is a pureblood supporter
> or that he feels that half-bloods should not be taught in the
> wizarding ways.  That would be hypocritical of him, as he is a
> half-blood himself.  

Hypocrisy?  Well, that's pretty typical behavior for him thusfar.  
It would be hypocritical for him to be nasty to students when he was 
the victim of abuse, wouldn't it?  

To me, Snape is a prime example of a "self-hating muggle."  Those 
who are familiar with the paradigm as it relates to Jews, African-
Americans, etc. will certainly see parallels.

The most vicious anti-semetic remarks I've ever heard have come out 
of the mouths of Jews, for example.

Now I say these things as someone who truly finds Snape compelling, 
and sees him ultimately on the side of good.  His character is 
deeply flawed, however, in very interesting ways.
 
As for why he joined Voldemort's minions, it makes perfect sense. 
Voldemort no doubt offered him what he wanted most but lacked.

Friends, money, esteem, and power, not necessarily in that order.  
It's the downtrodden who are always most susceptible to such a force 
as Voldemort.      






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 23:06:38 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:06:38 -0000
Subject: Snape's childhood WAS: Re: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmdd4e+nohg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmde5u+ajs3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143560

Leslie: 
> Well, I like to speculate as much as anyone, but Occam's razor would 
> seem to indicate that the woman being yelled at is his mother, the 
> person doing the yelling (with the hook nose) is his father, and the 
> small boy cowering in the corner is Snape.  
> 
> We're supposed to get an indication here through this scene that 
> Snape does come from a background in which he has seen at least some 
> emotional abuse.  
<SNIP>

Alla:

Well, I am not sure that we can apply Occam razor here with such 
certainty as you suggest.

As many remarked, Eileen was a witch, Tobias was a muggle and it is 
NOT a certainty IMO that witch would allow muggle to abuse herself, it 
is just not, unless of course as Potioncat speculated that Eileen was 
expelled from Hogwarts and was not allowed to use magic or something 
like that.

It could be a misdirection, just as well as an indication of abuse 
IMO. What if Eileen harmed Tonias in some way physical or emotional 
and he was genuinely upset and it was ONE single situation which never 
happened before or after? That is why Snape remembered it so well, 
because it was so unique. I mean, it still could be very bad ( one 
time abuse is still abuse), but we have no idea what it really was.

And of course it could be that the man had nothing to do with Tobias 
either.

In short, It is quite possible that man was Tobias (or not), but 
because of Eileen's background,as Nora said initially, there are holes 
now in " Snape being a product of abusive home" argument, IMO.



Alla,

who thinks that so far canon is clear about three characters having 
unhappy childhoods, but who does not include Snape in this number. 








From bartl at sprynet.com  Sun Nov 27 20:09:25 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:09:25 -0500
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series
In-Reply-To: <dmbsjr+9flu@eGroups.com>
References: <dmbsjr+9flu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438A1275.4060004@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143561

lupinlore wrote:
> Yes, if Snape's spell was the proximate cause of of DD's death, he not 
> only killed Dumbledore, he murdered him in every legal and moral 
> sense. 

Bart:
Interestingly enough, in the last episode of ER, a possibly analogous 
situation was covered. There was a man who was dying of injuries 
sustained in a plane crash. He was being kept alive and conscious via 
CPR, but, as soon as the CPR was withdrawn, he would die. The doctors 
administered the CPR until he could say goodbye to his family, and then 
stopped, allowing him to die.

If Dumbledore was in a state of temporarily "stoppered" death, where he 
could no longer heal, then, after the last horcrux, he was on his last 
legs anyway. Assuming this (and I admit it's a big assumption), then it 
becomes a question of euthanasia vs. "pulling the plug". Since this is a 
children's book, I frankly don't expect JKR to go into such fine points; 
at most, it's probably "Dumbledore was dead (or as good as) already, and 
he used Snape in order to choose a time and means of death as to do the 
most good."

	Bart







From literature_Caro at web.de  Sun Nov 27 23:16:00 2005
From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:16:00 +0100
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmdajr+9fkv@eGroups.com>
References: <dmap41+5uuj@eGroups.com> <dmdajr+9fkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1238454421.20051128001600@web.de>

No: HPFGUIDX 143562

I wonder, whether it has already been mentioned. If so, please let me
know the discussion's topic. I have a different interpretation of the
title of the second chapter in HBP:

A spinner of course could be a liar. But he could also be somebody who
spinns string. So it could also be the sealment of the end of the one
who spinns something. For example countermeasures or means of
information. Then this spinner, whose end is sealed is Dumbledore. If
so, then the title of the chapter says very little about Snape.

What is your opinion about this idea?

Yours Caro




From darqali at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 17:15:25 2005
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:15:25 -0000
Subject: SHIP Re: Harry and Ginny forever?
In-Reply-To: <dmch67+90l5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmcpjd+8006@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143563

Alora wrote:
> >
> > I was mulling over the Harry/Ginny romance and I'm wondering if 
it 
> > will make it.  Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for them, I think 
> >it's great. But, how many people actually find their "soul mate"  
> >that early in life?  
> >My point is, does anyone else feel that 
> > something bad might possibly happen to Ginny?  Is it too early 
for 
> > them to be together?  When the Bill/Fleur engagement was 
discussed 
> in 
> > HBP, Molly thought they were rushing it.  But she said that it 
was 
> > different for her and Arthur, because they were meant for each 
> other.  
> > Are Ginny and Harry meant for each other?  
 

It was clear to me from our first glimpse of Ginny {at the train 
station in SS/PS} that she was destined to be Harry's girl.  And 
*she* knew it from that moment onward, too {not, perhaps, 
"intellectually", but intuitivly}.  Harry, being male, was of course 
oblivious; but Ginny's being tounge-tied and clumbsy in Harry's 
presence in their subsequent meetings confirmed this.

While I agree that Harry may not survive the series, the romance will 
....for clearly,  there is "no other" for Ginny; so, if Harry 
*doesn't* live {and Ginny does}, then Ginny will have to end up one 
of Hogwarts' many unmarried faculty.  [Why is it that Hogwarts 
teachers  all seem to be single, anyway?]

And I agree that Ginny has had her one brush with LV  {in the form of 
Diary!Tom} and is unlikely to have another .... save, perhaps,  as a 
"helper" of Harry in some form as he seeks  out the Horcruxes.

"darqali"








From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Nov 27 20:36:20 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:36:20 -0500
Subject: Snape's Background and Soulmates
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAuWMwrhMjRkGilUcX++SoAgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143564

alora67:

"I was mulling over the Harry/Ginny romance and I'm wondering if it 
will make it.  Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for them, I think it's 
great. But, how many people actually find their "soul mate"  that 
early in life?  I know, I know, people do it every day, and my BIL and 
SIL have been together since they were sixteen and, twenty years later 
they are still together.  But this is the wizard world and there is a 
very strong Dark Lord  loose.  My point is, does anyone else feel that 
something bad might possibly happen to Ginny?  Is it too early for 
them to be together?  When the Bill/Fleur engagement was discussed in 
HBP, Molly thought they were rushing it.  But she said that it was 
different for her and Arthur, because they were meant for each other.  
Are Ginny and Harry meant for each other?  Do any of you think that 
JKR intends for them to end up with each other in the end?  Part of me 
wonders if something will happen to Ginny and Harry will end up 
alone...that sounds so sad.  I'm just interested in opinions :)

 "

Perhaps there is some spell that can test if a couple are 'true soulmates'
(assuming that such a thing exists) or not?  Perhaps it is cast as part of the
formal betrothal or wedding ceremony.

Whiz:

" Even if he had her wand and cut
her off from the magical world while abusing her, why was Snape so
well versed when he got to Hogwarts?  In fact, why was he sent to
Hogwarts at all? "

Perhaps this--Eileen figured out where Snape, Sr. had her wand hidden; he can't
watch her 24 hours/day--he has to sleep sometimes.  She has enough and bides her
time until his vigilance slips, she can get to her wand and then--well, even if
she has scruples against Unforgiveables, there are other ways to kill magically
than AK.  "Incendio" and "Sectumsempra" come to mind.

"Bruce Wilson"





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov 27 23:29:01 2005
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:29:01 -0000
Subject: No Hogwarts Express at the end of HBP?
In-Reply-To: <dm7q4a+9l0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdfft+2ce6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143565

Kelleyaynn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143487 :

<< Can anyone think of any significance for the book not ending with
the trip home on the Hogwarts Express? I believe every other HP book
ended at King's Cross. It makes me wonder if the seventh book will
pick up essentially where HBP left off - if maybe there is more that
will happen on this day, or before Harry gets back to Privet Drive that we
don't know about yet. >>

I can think of two possible reasons. One is to symbolise that Harry is
no longer a schoolboy, but now a hero on a quest, who will not be a
Hogwarts student in the next book. The other is that JKR has said that
Book 6 and Book 7 are more like two halves of one book (sorry, I can't
find the citation), in which case the ending of HBP is not the ending
of 'the book'.






From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov 27 23:41:25 2005
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:41:25 -0000
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
In-Reply-To: <dmbfjs+84no@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdg75+ppuj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143566

Whizbang wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143527 :

<< we know that Snape is capable of Legilimency and highy skilled in
Occlumency. When he thought he was dealing with the real Moody on the
stairs, he was angry and self righteous. It was after the staring
match that Snape's attitude suddenly changed. Now we've seen this kind
of staring match before. (snip) When Sirius and Lupin engaged in a
staring match, information was exchanged mentally in what seems to be
a form of legilimency. (snip) This is what happened between Snape and
Crouch/Moody on the stairs. Up to this point, Snape has been perfectly
able to give "Moody" as good as he gets, but his attitude takes a
remarkable turn here.

Quote: GoF, ch 25
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 - 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.
Mrs Norris gave a loud meow, still peering around Filch's legs,
looking for the source of Harry's bubble-bath smell.

"I think I will go back to bed," Snape said curtly.

"Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. >>

I just had an idea about that -- maybe it was a duel of two
Occlumenses trying to Legilimens each other without being 'read'
themselves, and maybe Crouch/Moody broke Snape's barrier, causing a
gusher of Snape memories as when Harry used the Shield (Protego!)
Charm during the Occlumency lesson in OoP. Then Snape could be scared
that the Alastor (!) has access to his memories, maybe even that the
gusher included incriminating memories that Alastor could use against
him, without Snape knowing that 'Moody' was a fake.






From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 00:30:20 2005
From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:30:20 -0000
Subject: Snape's childhood WAS: Re: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmde5u+ajs3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdj2s+c434@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143567

> Alla:
> 
> Well, I am not sure that we can apply Occam razor here with such 
> certainty as you suggest.
> 
> As many remarked, Eileen was a witch, Tobias was a muggle and it is 
> NOT a certainty IMO that witch would allow muggle to abuse herself, 
> it is just not, unless of course as Potioncat speculated that Eileen 
> was expelled from Hogwarts and was not allowed to use magic or 
> something like that.

<SNIP>

zeldaricdeau now:

I'd like to throw in my two cents here. It is not uncommon for an 
abuse victim to allow their own abuse to continue even when in 
possession of the power to stop it. It's a sad course of events, but 
often times an abuse victim may believe, on some level, that they 
deserve the abuse they receive. I would speculate that even a witch 
with magic powers that her abuser did not possess is just as human 
and, therefore, just as susceptible to such beliefs. Please, correct 
me if I am mistaken, as I do not have my books with me now, but I 
believe that in the memory in question, Eileen does not attempt to 
defend herself. This could be because of many reasons: 1.) We simply 
do not see this portion of the memory 2.) She is afraid to for some 
reason 2.) She feels she deserves the tirade because she has, 
honestly, done something to deserve it 4.) She feels she deserves the 
tirade despite the fact that she has, in actuality, done nothing to 
deserve it. Among other possible reasons of course, but these are the 
primary four I could come up with off the top of my head ???.

We might even speculate that Tobias had convinced Eileen that it 
was "wrong" for her to use her powers, or, in a converse fashion to 
the situation with Lilly and Petunia Evans and family, that it made 
her a "freak." It might sound far-fetched (and this being JKR's world, 
might BE far-fetched) but I have known several women who have fallen, 
through marriage, into religious groups (read: cults) that have 
managed to convince these women that their former way of life, 
beliefs, etc. was/were wrong/unnatural/sinful/etc., and that, by 
extension, they themselves were as well. Sometimes the desire to be 
loved romantically by someone is strong enough to destroy a person's 
own belief system, sense of self-worth, or familial connections. 
Certainly, we see a similar course of events at work with Merope 
Gaunt. The difference being that she had forced Tom Riddle Senior into 
the marriage without his knowledge or consent. Personally, I find no 
difficulty in believing that Eileen Prince, an unattractive, maybe 
unpopular, and perhaps poor witch from a once-prestigious but now 
fallen old wizarding family, might jump at a proposal of marriage from 
the first person who offered her some attention only to fall into the 
aforementioned type of abusive relationship.

A lot of speculation and maybes? Of course! But I think that any talk 
of Eileen and Tobias Snape???s relationship with the little knowledge we 
have at this stage must be mostly speculation.

All we know, for sure, of Eileen is what Hermione and Harry read in 
the Daily Prophet clippings. We know she was the Hogwarts Gobstones 
Team Captain and was rather unattractive and stern looking (at least 
according to the narrator???s eyes). To my mind, none of this 
information precludes a scenario like the one outlined above. Nor, of 
course, does it require it.

In short, I see no reason to believe that the ???Snape came from an 
abusive family??? scenario is any less probable now than it was prior to 
the release of HBP.

-ZR







From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Nov 28 01:02:53 2005
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:02:53 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmd7l2+7bo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdkvt+i9ne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143568

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...>
wrote:
 
> 
> In Post 143542
> 
> > colebiancardi:
> > One of the ideas I had on why little Severus knew so much about the
> > dark arts when he started Hogwarts was that Eileen taught him, but 
> not
> > because she was a Voldemort supporter.  She went to school with
> > Riddle, perhaps was in the same house(we don't know what house she 
> was
> > sorted in - another mystery).  She would have seen his rise to power
> > and the way he fought those who opposed him.  My thought is that she
> > taught her son not only to defend himself against the dark arts -
> > which would explain why he knew so much about them - but also to use
> > them - as a means to fight fire with fire, if he was ever attacked.
> 
> Potioncat:
> I'm not sure how many people understand that LV was Tom Riddle. But 
> you're right, Eileen would have overlapped TR at school and may know 
> it's the same person...assuming she was still alive when he rose to 
> power.
>

colebiancardi:
didn't Tom change his name to Lord Voldemort during his stay at
Hogwarts?   I don't know how many people knew about it, but when Voldy
came back to apply for the job at Hogwarts, it was about the time
Snape would have been born, no?  He was being called Voldemort at that
time and he did have Death Eaters, so it is quite possible Eileen knew
about Riddle/Voldemort.  At any rate, someone had to have taught Snape
dark arts prior to his enrollment at Hogwarts - it wasn't his dad,
that is for sure.  What I meant by the rise of Voldy's power is that
timestretch, not the 1970's, in which he was already firmly in place.
 
> Slughorn was fairly indifferent to Dark Arts if you ask me. He 
> commented that wizards of a certain calibre were drawn to them. He 
> states that DD is adamant that certain magic not be taught. If Eileen 
> was a Slytherin, she probably had ample opportunity to learn Dark 
> Arts.
> > 

colebiancardi:  I think that perhaps a lot of wizards at that time
were indifferent to the Dark Arts - look at Durmstrang.  They still
teach it.    I think the teaching of Dark Arts were prohibited once DD
became headmaster, but I don't have the quote for it.  I could be
wrong.  Not the first time :-)

 
colebiancardi...






From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Mon Nov 28 01:34:30 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:34:30 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmb952+hlit@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdmr6+7kc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143569

>
> Potioncat:
> 
> Eileen had enough contact with the Muggle world to meet and marry a 
> Muggle. Yet, little Severus will arrive at Hogwarts knowing more 
> curses than most 7th years. Lots of gaps here. Of course, one could 
> practice Dark Magic without being a Pureblood.
> 
Does it bother no one but me that so much of what we know about young 
Snape comes from Sirius Black, hardly a disinterested witness?

For some reason, from the first moment I met Sirius, he absolutely 
made my skin crawl, especially when Harry proposed moving in with him. 
I'm not sure why, but on mature reflection I have my suspicions. He's 
a Black, after all...

--La Gatta







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 01:40:25 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:40:25 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdmr6+7kc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdn69+o5fn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143570


LA Gatta:
> Does it bother no one but me that so much of what we know about 
young 
> Snape comes from Sirius Black, hardly a disinterested witness?
<SNIP>

Alla:

Not disinterested witness he may be, but liar so far he is not, IMO. :)

Sirius' reminiscences about Snape keep coming true, no? At least " 
knew more dark curses than..." received solid canon support in HBP.

JMO,

Alla, who thinks that some other Sirius comments about Snape may turn 
out to be true too.







From maliksthong at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 01:50:42 2005
From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:50:42 -0000
Subject: Horcrux in the office?
Message-ID: <dmdnpi+gurv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143571

I was thinking back on something we'd talked about before and I was 
wondering if there really wasn't a horcrux made in the office when 
Harry saw the memory of Voldemort wanting a job at Hogwarts, and the 
little twitch of his hand? 

Well, I figured that perhaps the memory was exactly as DD remembered 
it- but that he had been stupified/obliviated/memory tampered with 
like LV did to the house elf and Morfin, or something similar, while 
LV made the horcrux right in that office, either from the hat or the 
sword or something unknown of value there, as well as placed the 
curse on the job at the time. 

On how to do it- well, why couldn't he have killed Fawkes to do it? 
No one ever said it was just a human life taken that rips the soul- 
it said 'killing'. There was no mention of the state of the phoenix 
at the end of the memory, only at the beginning where he was 
slumbering happily. Perhaps DD would have turned around after the 
interview and believed it had just been a burning day, when actually 
Fawkes had been hit by the AK (as we've seen in the OotP, he's just 
reborn again.)

I don't know if anyone mentioned this possibility before but if you 
have please direct me to the thread where the conversation took place!

Chys








From radasgat at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 01:57:40 2005
From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:57:40 -0000
Subject: HBP: newbie to the discussion, random thoughts
Message-ID: <dmdo6k+b7re@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143572


Hi All,

I'm a newbie to the discussion board here, but have been listening in
for about 24 hours.  I haven't had time to read half of what's in here.

Here's two thoughts I'm going to toss out there. 

1. It is no coincidence that Dumbledore's familiar is a phoenix; a
bird that rises from its own ashes after a period of looking hideous.
 Dumbledore looked horrible weeks before his death.  Then we see a
phoenix rise from his funer pyre (note.. its a pyre that they used on
him, not a burial)

2.  Could it be possible that Snape's mother and Tom Riddle not only
knew each other at school (50 years ago), but were intimate and had a
child (perhaps after school and before LV's rise to power).  That
child was Snape.  And Miss Prince went on to marry some muggle- Mr.
Snape after LV scorned her.  Thus making Snape, truly, a half-blood
Prince in more than one sense of the word.

Sorry if those thoughs have already been posted

Radasgat the Brown








From whizbang121 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 02:24:02 2005
From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:24:02 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmcohq+c2b7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdpo2+tv8e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143573

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:
snip
However, we do not see him, outside of the calling
> Lily a mudblood, that today's grown-up Snape is a pureblood supporter
> or that he feels that half-bloods should not be taught in the
> wizarding ways.  That would be hypocritical of him, as he is a
> half-blood himself.  

Whiz:  
Nowhere does it say that Purebloods think half bloods shouldn't be
taught wizard ways.  Half bloods are tolerated.  It's only muggleborns
and halfbreeds that Purebloods have issues with.  For all the reasons
that Draco torments Harry, it's never about his mixed blood, but he
loves to remind everyone that Hermione is muggleborn.  








From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Mon Nov 28 02:26:29 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:26:29 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dmd2f7+l9k4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdpsl+mnt4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143574

>
>                                     ...Even if, as I fully expect,
> JKR shows Snape to have been loyal to Dumbledore all along, even in
> the tower scene and afterwards, readers will still differ in their
> attitudes toward and their feelings about Snape and the fate JKR
> chooses to assign him. I, for one, will feel cheated and betrayed if
> he is condemned to a life sentence in Azkaban or worse, has his soul
> sucked out by a Dementor (not likely with the Dementors outside MoM
> control, fortunately). I *would* be happy if, after helping Harry in
> some way, he came to an understanding with Harry--and with Lupin, his
> fellow DADA curse victim, with whom he has a lot in common if he 
> could only see it...
>
I too think that in the tower scene, Snape is acting strictly in 
accordance with Dumbledore's orders. All the information we have to go 
on comes from Harry's third-party perceptions, and Harry is neither 
infallible nor a disinterested part;y. We know that wizards can use 
nonverbal spells; also that Snape is a Legilimens as well as an 
Occlumens (Dumbledore too?); who knows what Snape might have been 
doing (and Dumbledore too for that matter) besides casting the Avada 
Kedavra curse on Dumbledore.

My personal theory is that what Snape is doing "behind the curtain" is 
creating some sort of reverse Horcrux, that leaves the soul intact, 
even while killing and even fragmenting the body, and transfers the 
soul into a temporary host (Fawkes?) until the body can be restored or 
a new body found. The reason Dumbledore insists on getting back to 
Snape is that (a) only Snape knows how to perform the charm, and (b) 
Snape is the only one *good* enough, in the most literal sense of the 
word, to bring it off!

That would tie in with Snape's patronus/animage being a unicorn. And 
with that nose, what else could it be?

--La Gatta







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 02:39:54 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:39:54 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmdpo2+tv8e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdqlq+qno5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143575

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" <whizbang121 at y...> 
wrote:

> Whiz:  
> Nowhere does it say that Purebloods think half bloods shouldn't be
> taught wizard ways.  Half bloods are tolerated.  It's only 
> muggleborns and halfbreeds that Purebloods have issues with.  For 
> all the reasons that Draco torments Harry, it's never about his 
> mixed blood, but he loves to remind everyone that Hermione is 
> muggleborn.

>From JKR's website:

-Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) 
called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?-

The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have 
been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express 
their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy 
is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. 
Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of 
his mother's grandparents.
------------

Ergo, for at least some out there, Harry too is an inadequate 
exemplar of a wizard.  There are just even more obvious targets as 
well.

-Nora yawns and takes a break from other writing






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 28 02:50:04 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:50:04 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdn69+o5fn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdr8s+4rsu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143576


> LA Gatta:
> > Does it bother no one but me that so much of what we know about 
> young 
> > Snape comes from Sirius Black, hardly a disinterested witness?
> <SNIP>
Potioncat:
I used to take anything Sirius said about Severus with several grains 
of salt...of course, I developed hypertension as a result so I had to 
stop.  Actually, it seems HBP may have confirmed some of Sirius's 
comments. But, to honestly answer your question, I find anything 
Sirius says about Snape to be very biased and not reliable. Same goes 
for what Snape says about the Marauders.
> 
> Alla: 
> Sirius' reminiscences about Snape keep coming true, no? At least " 
> knew more dark curses than..." received solid canon support in HBP.
 
> Alla, who thinks that some other Sirius comments about Snape may 
turn out to be true too.

Potioncat:
Like the one about as far as he knew Snape had never even been 
accused of being an DE, and that Sirius didn't think Snape had been 
one? 

One can only hope. ;-)








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 03:13:24 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 03:13:24 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdr8s+4rsu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdskk+bcj7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143577

> Potioncat:
> I used to take anything Sirius said about Severus with several 
grains 
> of salt...of course, I developed hypertension as a result so I had 
to 
> stop. 

Alla: LOLOL! I want to have your sense of humor. Could I borrow it, 
please?

Potioncat:
 Actually, it seems HBP may have confirmed some of Sirius's 
> comments. 

Alla:

Yes, and wasn't it more than many people expected?

Potioncat:
But, to honestly answer your question, I find anything 
> Sirius says about Snape to be very biased and not reliable. Same 
goes 
> for what Snape says about the Marauders.


Alla:

Your POV has my deepest respect, but I still don't remember any 
occasions from canon where Sirius is shown to be a liar. ( not 
arguing that he loves Snape or anything, but I think he still says 
the truth). Not Knowing things? Yes. Lying? Could you give me some 
canon on that?



> > Alla, who thinks that some other Sirius comments about Snape may 
> turn out to be true too.
> 
> Potioncat:
> Like the one about as far as he knew Snape had never even been 
> accused of being an DE, and that Sirius didn't think Snape had 
been 
> one? 
> 
> One can only hope. ;-)


Alla:

LOL, Actually, I was talking about Sirius' words, where he is 
absolutely sure of himself. And he does not look sure to me when he 
talks along the lines you described.

He says the following :

"But as far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a Death 
Eater - not that that measn much. Plenty of them were never caught. 
And Snape's certainly clever and cunning enough to keep himself out 
of trouble" - GoF, p.531. It seems to me that Sirius is NOT sure of 
Snape not being a DE here at all, IMO.

He also says that:

"There is still the fact that Dumbledore trusts Snape, and I know 
Dumbledore trusts where a lot of other people wouldn't, but I just 
can't see him letting Snape teach at Hogwarts if he'd ever worked 
for Voldemort" - GoF, p.532.

Hmmm, it seems to me that here Sirius basically expresses faith in 
Dumbledore, NOT gives eyewitness testimony or at least evaluation 
about Snape.

But actually here is the quote, which I think may come true ( well, 
probably not but I would find it funny if it will)

" I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you are reformed, I know 
better..." - OOP, paperback, p.520.


JMO,

Alla







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 04:01:07 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 04:01:07 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdn69+o5fn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmdve3+p58g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143578

Alla wrote:
<snip> 
> Sirius' reminiscences about Snape keep coming true, no? At least " 
> knew more dark curses than..." received solid canon support in HBP.
> JMO,
> Alla, who thinks that some other Sirius comments about Snape may
turn out to be true too.
>
Carol responds:
The actual quote is "knew more curses when he arrived at school than
half the seventh years." The word "Dark" is not included. I seriously
doubt that "half the seventh years" were casting Dark curses, and in
any case, the number of genuinely Dark curses that we know of is quite
small. Certainly neither eleven-year-old Severus nor the students six
years ahead of him were casting the Unforgiveables at Hogwarts, and he
hadn't invented Sectumsempra yet. Unless we count Serpensortia, the
spell that Snape had Draco cast in CoS (and which Snape easily dealt
with by silently Evanescoing the snake, so maybe it doesn't qualify as
Dark), the only genuinely Dark curse that I can think of is the one
with the jet of purple light that Dolohov used to injure Hermione in
OoP (unfortunately, we don't know its name because Hermione had just
Silencio'd Dolohov).

To return to young Severus, it seems likely that Sirius Black is using
the word "curses" rather loosely to mean jinxes and hexes, and perhaps
DADA countercurses like Expelliarmus and Protego, rather than "Dark
curses," (We know from Severus's detailed DADA O.W.L. responses that
he was very knowledgeable in that subject a few years later. I suspect
he was a child prodigy "collected" by both Slughorn and Lucius Malfoy
for his precocious abilities in both DADA and Potions.) Even at
fifteen, he was not perhaps quite as steeped in the Dark Arts as Black
suggests. Only one of the invented spells in his Potions book,
Sectumsempra, qualifies as Dark. Levicorpus, which suspends a person
upside down without physically harming him, became a fad among the
whole student body, not just the Slytherins (I doubt that James would
have used it if he considered it Dark magic), and Muffliato (which
Harry considers highly useful) creates a buzzing in the ears of
would-be eavesdroppers, again without harming them. Neither can by any
stretch of the imagination be called a Dark curse. 

My point is that the word "Dark" is not part of the original
quotation, and I think the misquotation creates altogether the wrong
impression of the talented and clever little boy with his repertoire
of jinxes and hexes.

Carol, who thinks that Severus, whether he was eleven or seventeen,
would have been more than a match for James when he wasn't caught
off-guard with two (or more) against one






From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 04:12:21 2005
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 04:12:21 -0000
Subject: Snape's childhood WAS: Re: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmde5u+ajs3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dme035+sfrg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143579

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> Well, I am not sure that we can apply Occam razor here with such 
> certainty as you suggest.
> 
> As many remarked, Eileen was a witch, Tobias was a muggle and it 
is 
> NOT a certainty IMO that witch would allow muggle to abuse 
herself, it 
> is just not, unless of course as Potioncat speculated that Eileen 
was 
> expelled from Hogwarts and was not allowed to use magic or 
something 
> like that.

The argument that a witch would not allow abuse seems to be to be 
spurious, akin to asserting that a woman who is rich and capable of 
leaving her husband would not allow it. Or suggesting that a woman 
with a gun would not allow it. There is nothing intrinsic about 
being "magical" that protects one against the willness to endure 
abuse, mental or physical.  People tolerate it for different 
reasons.  

Harry routinely allows himself to be subject to the terrible abuse 
of the Dursleys, for example.  
> 
> It could be a misdirection, just as well as an indication of abuse 
> IMO. What if Eileen harmed Tonias in some way physical or 
emotional 
> and he was genuinely upset and it was ONE single situation which 
never 
> happened before or after? That is why Snape remembered it so well, 
> because it was so unique. I mean, it still could be very bad ( one 
> time abuse is still abuse), but we have no idea what it really was.
> 
> And of course it could be that the man had nothing to do with 
Tobias 
> either.

Well, this is of course a possibility, and there's nothing to 
disprove this.  But his personality as an adult and as a child 
reveal someone who has, well...curdled.  I personally don't 
think he was cared for properly.  Loved?  Yes.  Abuse doesn't 
exclude love.  Most parents love their children, even if they abuse 
them.  But I think Snape's home life could not possibly have 
been ideal.  
> 
> In short, It is quite possible that man was Tobias (or not), but 
> because of Eileen's background,as Nora said initially, there are 
holes 
> now in " Snape being a product of abusive home" argument, IMO.

Abuse, well...I don't know what to say about that.  It's obvious his 
father was, as I said, severe.  But I'm certain that if there was 
not abuse, there was neglect.  Remember the description of him as a 
teenager. He was like "a plant kept in the dark".  The "sun" of the 
child is the parents.  

I don't think he was the product of a nurturing environment.  I 
don't think he makes sense as a character any other way.








From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Mon Nov 28 03:55:17 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:55:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sorting Hat as Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dlsg86+ik37@eGroups.com>
References: <dlsg86+ik37@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4ae0276dbb57f66780f48dc6feafa0d9@twcny.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143580

> MercuryBlue:
> The diary Horcrux, may I remind you, was created when he was 
> SIXTEEN.  Nobody graduates until they're at least closing on 
> EIGHTEEN.

Well, not really.  He put the memory of himself in the diary at 
16, but I don't think he created the horcrux until later.  
Remember, Lucius had the diary and gave it to Ginny on the sly 
in the bookstore.  However, Voldemort did return to Hogwarts 
after graduation, to ask Dumbledore for a job.  He was in AD's 
office, presumably along with the Sorting Hat.  That said, I 
don't think it is one.  Just a hunch, though, no evidential 
reasons.

> MercuryBlue:
> Value-added bonus for Riddle regarding the Sorting Hat as a 
> potential Horcrux: He doesn't have to expend any effort to 
> protect it. Everyone else will do it for him. It IS an 
> important part of the only magical school in the British 
> Isles, after all.

Hmmmm, this is true.  I hadn't thought of that.

> > Amontillada:
> > I find that to be the main reason why it couldn't be a 
> > Horcrux: it's hard to believe that even Voldemort could 
> > place a soul fragment in such a magically powerful object 
> > without touching off the magic that's already there.

Plus, the hat talks.  Why wouldn't it give away what was done?

Lorie

"The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity."
--Ellen Parr







From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Mon Nov 28 03:56:48 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:56:48 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why didn't Fawkes turn up??
In-Reply-To: <dlsh3j+on8g@eGroups.com>
References: <dlsh3j+on8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <609cd59d37ad72c8bd590fcd881907c8@twcny.rr.com>

Scam wrote:
> <snip> So, when the entire conversation between AD and Draco 
> (DM) was taking place on the castle ramparts itself (IMO, 
> ample time for Fawkes to have sensed danger to its master), 
> why didn't Fawkes turn up?? <snip>

Because AD didn't call him?  I really think AD was begging not for 
his life, but for Snape to finish him off.  He knew he was dying, 
and had done his job by Harry.

Lorie





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 05:04:42 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:04:42 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdve3+p58g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dme35a+mprg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143582

> Carol responds:
> The actual quote is "knew more curses when he arrived at school 
than
> half the seventh years." The word "Dark" is not included.
<SNIP of the whole post>

Alla:

My bad, sorry, but since the word "Dark" is pretty close to this 
quotation, namely the sentence prior to it, I think my mistake is 
understandable.

"Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for 
it at school. Slimy, oily, greasy -haired kid, he was," Sirius 
added, and Harry and Ron grinned at each other. "Snape knew more 
curses when he arrived at school than half the kids of the seven 
year, and he was part of gang of Slytherins, who nearly all turned 
out to be Death Eaters"  - GoF, p.531.


> Carol, who thinks that Severus, whether he was eleven or seventeen,
> would have been more than a match for James when he wasn't caught
> off-guard with two (or more) against one
>


JMO,

Alla, who agrees with Carol in the part of Severus being more than a 
match for James and speculates that quite often he was not caught 
off guard






From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 28 05:17:32 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:17:32 EST
Subject: PoA - Snape knew?/Who is the real dark character in the series?
Message-ID: <84.528e3cf4.30bbecec@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143583

whizbang121 wrote:
Well, not all of it.  The thought that Snape is Draco's godfather 
 fuzzy and was never presented as canon.  
 
Gerry wrote:
It's a thought that is higly popular in fanfiction and actually has  no
base in canon. Actually, Chapter 2 in HBP makes it clear that there  is
no such relationship. When Narcissa pleads with Snape she does  not
refer once to such a relation, though that would be a very good  point
in favour of her case. The argument she uses is him being  his
favourite teacher, which though it may be flattering does not give  any
moral obligation at all.



Julie:
Good point. Considering how determined Narcissa was to protect
her son, I'm sure she would have brought up any godfather/godson 
relationship in her effort to secure Snape's help. 
 
While I do think Snape may have a morally, and  perhaps physically,
binding obligation to a child, I believe that child is Harry. (Oh,  irony
of ironies!) I don't know the nature of that obligation (a WW  promise,
vow, or bond of some sort?) but Snape has too often been in position
to protect Harry's life, and to teach him needed skills (whether he  has
been successful or not), right up to the Tower scene when he stops 
a DE from Crucioing Harry, and delivers advice ("blocked again and 
again and again, until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your
mind closed, Potter!"). It occurs a bit too often to be a  coincidence,
and since Snape wouldn't do all this for Harry out of any  affectionate
feelings, he's doing it because he MUST (and perhaps because it is
the right thing to do, as it will eventually lead to the end of Voldemort). 
 
Julie 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From erikog at one.net  Mon Nov 28 05:20:53 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:20:53 -0000
Subject: What is poetic justice? WAS: Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmcdsf+chbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dme43l+t6jt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143584


> Potioncat:
> > My personal speculation is that Eileen was expelled from Hogwarts 
> and 
> > was unable to do most magic, therefore was at a angry Muggle's 
> mercy 
> > in that scene.

I'm quoting this here as a substitute for the real message I want to quote--
one that indicated Eileen couldn't have been an abuse victim, because, as 
a witch, she would've been able to blast her abuser into Kingdom-Come. 
Potioncat's idea that maybe Eileen had lost her magic somehow, making 
her vulnerable to abuse, is of the same thought: that a magical person 
(with awareness of his/her power) can't be abused by a muggle, 
because of the obvious power differential.

I don't think we need to create elaborate backstories in order to explain this scenario. 
Unfortunately, there are countless women worldwide living in situations they know 
to be abusive--not just the most benighted women, but women with families, 
with jobs, with income, with brains, with every reason to know they don't have to 
live in such a situation, with every reason to believe that they deserve *better*
 than to live in such a situation. If because of psychological abuse
 they can't see their "powers," would it be any surprise at all that a 
magical woman couldn't see *hers*? 

Krista






From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Nov 28 05:35:28 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:28 EST
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
Message-ID: <1e2.49785ca0.30bbf120@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143585

 


> Bart:
>     Did he kill Dumbledore? Was  Dumbledore's hand unhealable 
because it was 
> magically damaged, or  was it unhealable because he could no longer 
heal 
> from injuries?  From (S/P)S, Chapter 8: "I can teach you how to bottle 
> fame, brew  glory, even stopper death"
> 


Lupinlore:
Yes, if Snape's spell was the proximate cause of of DD's  death, he not 
only killed Dumbledore, he murdered him in every legal and  moral 
sense.  If DD was in fact dying it would not matter in any way,  shape, 
form, or fashion.  If the situation was hopeless with regard to  tactics 
it would not matter in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  If DD  
asked/begged/ordered Snape to kill him it would not matter in any way,  
shape, form, or fashion.

Now, if, as has been theorized by some, what  happened was an elaborate 
ruse that went south in a catastrophic way, then  Snape would have some 
workable defense.  But that is the only situation  in which Snape would 
have a defense.






Julie:
This is not strictly true, even in the Real World. Mitigating  circumstances
do play in role, both in the decision on what charges to bring against  the
accused, and in the eventual punishment phase. For instance,  euthanasia
is a defense in some states in the U.S. that has resulted in  dismissal
of all charges. 
 
And we have no clue about the law in the WW. It may be that a 
euthanasia type defense could be valid. It also may be that a wizard
who is ordered to do something, even including killing, could be
exonerated. There are binding contracts in the WW, like Unbreakable
Vow, that don't exist in the RW. 
 
And who knows what Dumbledore will have to say about Snape's act
from beyond the grave? What if he left a note saying he elicited a
binding contract/promise from Snape to kill him under certain 
circumstances (such as the circumstances on the Tower)? Or that
Snape in some other way didn't act under his own volition, but was
under Dumbledore's control (whether true or not)? 
 
None of this may be the case, but it's another example of how little
we really know about what happened on the Tower. And I'm NOT
talking about what Harry saw, but the how and the why behind
both Dumbledore's and Snape's actions before, during and after 
Dumbledore's death. 
 
Until we know those facts--and I feel very certain JKR will reveal
the how and why above--we still have too little knowledge on  which 
to judge Snape, or to postulate a just punishment, IMO. 
 
Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 07:01:51 2005
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:01:51 -0000
Subject: What about Norbert?
In-Reply-To: <dmcpur+f98c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmea0v+m3n3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143586

Lolita:
> 
> I can think of a couple of things:
> 
> 1. Are we finally going to learn about other uses of dragon's blood? 
> (I don't think that Harry will be doing much oven cleaning in Year 7)

Finwitch:

-- I believe Slughorn has used one. He *did* have Dragon's blood on
the wall, clearly used for something. Both Dumbledore and Slughorn
knew the use, of course, so they don't say it aloud... (Considering
Dumbledore was the one who *discovered* these uses, Slughorn can't
even brag about that... and we get a clue, but not full details) Maybe
Harry will figure it out - The blood made the place look like it had
been attacked or Slughorn look like an armchair? 

Oh well, maybe Norbert becomes a blood-donor for Harry...

Finwitch







From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 07:19:30 2005
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:19:30 -0000
Subject: Charlotta Pinkstone
Message-ID: <dmeb22+upev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143587

The witch of November, Charlotta Pinkstone. She opposes the Statute of
Secrecy and used to  cast spells openly... Ministry has imprisoned her...

I just wonder - will she end up in the Series, and if, then which side
will she be on?

Finwitch






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 28 11:29:09 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:29:09 -0000
Subject: Snape's childhood WAS: Re: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dme035+sfrg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmepm5+4thl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143588

leslie41:
> The argument that a witch would not allow abuse seems to be to be 
> spurious, akin to asserting that a woman who is rich and capable of 
> leaving her husband would not allow it. Or suggesting that a woman 
> with a gun would not allow it. There is nothing intrinsic about 
> being "magical" that protects one against the willness to endure 
> abuse, mental or physical.  People tolerate it for different 
> reasons.

Ceridwen:
I should probably jump in here.  I think, at least on this current go-
round, that I'm the one who mentioned that Eileen would have too much 
power to wield over a Muggle Tobias, to allow herself to be abused.  
I based this on the WW and its witches who are in positions of power, 
in government, at Hogwarts, and probably in businesses as well (like 
Madam Malkin).  I was suggesting that, culturally, Eileen grew up in 
a world where no witch I've seen (with the exception of Merope Gaunt, 
who came from a very odd family indeed and didn't socialize much, 
from the way I read that scene) would ever tolerate abuse.  Woman 
Subservient is not the WW way.  While, it is, or was, the way in our 
world, for centuries or more.  If Eileen Prince was a Pureblood or 
close enough to it not to have been culturally undermined by Muggle 
values of half a century ago, then it's less likely that she would 
tolerate abuse.  IMO.

And, it seems that Eileen was a more social creature than son Snape.  
She was president of the Gobstones club, which is probably just as 
much of a popularity contest among members as anything, so she did 
get out and about, at least at school.  With the WW being much better 
at parity between the sexes, this has been her environment at least 
from the point of starting school.  It probably was before then, too.

I think you mentioned the Gaunts?  They kept pretty much to 
themselves, it seems.  Speaking Parseltongue, excluding outsiders, 
Merope was not exposed to very much in the way of the WW's attitudes 
concerning women.  She was browbeaten at home, and considered no 
better than a Squib.  If she attended Hogwarts at all, she was 
probably so cowed by that time that she kept to herself there, too.  
But somehow, I doubt if she went.  If she did, she would have known 
that she was no Squib.  (Several people have guessed, assumed and 
speculated that some WW kids are homeschooled, could be the case with 
the Gaunts)  Merope was the direct opposite of the witches we meet in 
the rest of the HP books.  And, it was probably due to her upbringing 
and isolation from other WW folk.  She had no feeling of self-worth, 
so she felt worthless.  Hence the use of a love potion to trap a man, 
the loss of powers (nice analogy, btw) when he turned his back on 
her, standing for the way her father and brother treated her at home, 
probably even losing the will to live and dying just when she was 
beginning to realize her powers and had a child to live for.

leslie41:
> Harry routinely allows himself to be subject to the terrible abuse 
> of the Dursleys, for example.

Ceridwen:
This is the way Harry was raised.  Until he gets to Hogwarts, his 
major experience is of abuse or neglect at one level or another.  
It's as much a part of his world and his being as air or water.  When 
he does unconsciously fight back, it's devastating - Dudley under 
glass, floating Marge.  The big surprise is that the Dursleys 
continue their mistreatment, esp. after things like that.  They come 
off as dull-witted when they purposely ignore a potential disaster 
coming their way.

Since I've never studied psychology formally - the pop variety is all 
over the place, but it's probably not trustworthy - I won't dare go 
into the rest of your message, about Snape's behavior and the parents 
being the 'sun' of the child.  But, these are my impressions of the 
WW, the way women are portrayed and perceived, Merope Gaunt's outside-
the-loop example, and what I think Eileen Prince grew up seeing that 
would have made her much less a candidate for tolerating abuse than 
otherwise strong women in our own world.

Ceridwen.







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 11:49:02 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:49:02 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
In-Reply-To: <1e2.49785ca0.30bbf120@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dmeqre+mb4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143589

> Julie:
> This is not strictly true, even in the Real World. Mitigating  
circumstances
> do play in role, both in the decision on what charges to bring 
against  the
> accused, and in the eventual punishment phase. For instance,  
euthanasia
> is a defense in some states in the U.S. that has resulted in  
dismissal
> of all charges.

a_svirn:
If we are to make comparisons with "Real Life", I am afraid, 
euthanasia parallel won't work. For one thing the absolute 
prerequisite for euthanasia is the patient's wish. Since the 
situation on the Tower was a complete surprise for all concerned 
(except for Draco and his comrades-in-arms, of course) it cannot be 
said that Snape had the dying Dumbledore's expressed wish to kill 
him. No can it be said that Snape knew that Dumbledore was dying and 
suffering the agony of unbearable pain. Even if the potion in the 
cave was actually a slow poison, Snape hadn't been present when 
Dumbledore had drunk it and therefore couldn't assess the damage 
done. 

Also euthanasia in "Real Life" doesn't mean that you, say, ambush a 
terminally ill person, while they are still in a possession of their 
faculties, point a gun at them and shoot them to death. It means, 
basically, either withholding life support or vital medication 
or/and terminal sedation. The main point, however, is to end 
person's suffering and agony, not just kill them because they are 
dying anyway. Nope, the murder on the Tower lookes like a murder and 
not even remotely like euthanasia.

> Julie:
> And who knows what Dumbledore will have to say about Snape's act
> from beyond the grave? What if he left a note saying he elicited a
> binding contract/promise from Snape to kill him under certain 
> circumstances (such as the circumstances on the Tower)? 

a_svirn:
Well, I don't know about the parallels in "Real Life", but the 
example that comes to mind immediately is the contract from "Once 
Upon a Time in America". You know, when a guy contracted his cousin 
to kill him. But then, they both were Mafiosi, not the high-minded 
promoters of the ideas of Light.  






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Mon Nov 28 11:57:06 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:57:06 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
In-Reply-To: <1e2.49785ca0.30bbf120@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dmerai+ksg0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143590


> Lupinlore:
> Yes, if Snape's spell was the proximate cause of of DD's  death, he 
not only killed Dumbledore, he murdered him in every legal and  moral 
> sense.  If DD was in fact dying it would not matter in any way,  
shape, 
> form, or fashion.  If the situation was hopeless with regard to  
tactics 
> it would not matter in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  If DD  
> asked/begged/ordered Snape to kill him it would not matter in any 
way,  
> shape, form, or fashion.

I couldn't DISAGREE more. I do not have a firm enough grasp of 
British law to argue the legal angle. BUT, if DD and Snape have 
concocted a plan that requires the 'murder' of DD, and that this plan 
was executed for the eventual destruction of Lord Voldemort and the 
better good of the wizarding world, then I personally do not believe 
it to be morally wrong. In fact, I regard it as incredibly brave. 

'Lupinlore - If DD asked/begged/ordered Snape to kill him it would 
not matter in any way, shape, form, or fashion.'

That is your opinion - it is not fact. Personally, I do not believe 
that euthanasia (if that is what it is) is morally wrong. JMO!

As for Snape - even if he is acting for good, I doubt he cares about 
the moral/legal angle anyway. I think he has an intensely personal 
grudge against Voldemort, and that this is all that matters. In fact, 
I do not see Snape surviving book 7. Whatever he does, it will have a 
huge bearing on the final conflict between HP & LV (i'm still betting 
on Horcrux destruction), but he will die in the end.

IMO the events on the tower will never be explained by either Snape 
of (posthumous) DD.

Brothergib
 






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Nov 28 12:54:10 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:54:10 -0000
Subject: Charlotta Pinkstone
In-Reply-To: <dmeb22+upev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmeuli+cqn6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143591

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> 
wrote:
>
> The witch of November, Charlotta Pinkstone. She opposes the Statute 
of
> Secrecy and used to  cast spells openly... Ministry has imprisoned 
her...
> 
> I just wonder - will she end up in the Series, and if, then which 
side
> will she be on?

Not very many of the Wizards/Witches of the Month have actually 
appeared in Canon ? the closest we get to actually meeting a WOTM is 
Gwenog Jones (June 2004), the Holyhead Harper's Beater who is 
mentioned twice in HBP (Chaps. 4 & 14): Slughorn shows her animated 
photo to Harry, and later Hermione recounts meeting her at one of the 
Slug Club parties ("Personally, I thought she was a bit full of 
herself, but ?").  There are also references to Donaghan Tremlett 
(July 2004) of the Weird Sisters (OOP, Chap 14), and several 
references to Uric the Oddball (September 2004).   Elfrida Clagg 
(June 2005), who made the Golden Snidget a protected species, is 
mentioned in QTA Chap. 4. 

None of the characters have played a pivotal role in the series to 
date, so I think it unlikely that the agitator Pinkstone, even if she 
appeared, receives more than a passing mention. But surely a witch 
who wants to break down the barriers between magic and Muggles is 
*not" going to align herself with the Dark Lord.

   - CMC







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 28 13:24:27 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:24:27 -0000
Subject: Charlotta Pinkstone
In-Reply-To: <dmeuli+cqn6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmf0eb+cglm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143592

Finwitch asked:
> > The witch of November, Charlotta Pinkstone. She opposes the 
Statute of Secrecy and used to  cast spells openly... Ministry has 
imprisoned her...
> > 
> > I just wonder - will she end up in the Series, and if, then which 
> side
> > will she be on?

CMC answered:
> 
> Not very many of the Wizards/Witches of the Month have actually 
> appeared in Canon ? 
>snip<
> But surely a witch 
> who wants to break down the barriers between magic and Muggles is 
> *not" going to align herself with the Dark Lord.

Potioncat:
I think it's interesting that Pinkstone is a comtemporary of Riddle 
and McGonagall. She overlapped their time at Hogwarts, although 
Riddle may have been too young for them to have known each other. 

I also think Finwitch has a good question. My first reaction was that 
Pinkstone was for a meeting of minds between Muggles and Wizards. But 
perhaps she wants to make Muggles aware of Wizards for some other, 
less pleasant reason. 







From erikog at one.net  Mon Nov 28 15:23:25 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:23:25 -0000
Subject: Gender in the WW
Message-ID: <dmf7dd+t5qi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143593

Ceriden writes:

>I should probably jump in here.  I think, at least on this current go-
>round, that I'm the one who mentioned that Eileen would have too much
>power to wield over a Muggle Tobias, to allow herself to be abused.
>I based this on the WW and its witches who are in positions of power,
>in government, at Hogwarts, and probably in businesses as well (like
>Madam Malkin).  I was suggesting that, culturally, Eileen grew up in
>a world where no witch I've seen (with the exception of Merope Gaunt,
>who came from a very odd family indeed and didn't socialize much,
>from the way I read that scene) would ever tolerate abuse.  Woman
>Subservient is not the WW way.  While, it is, or was, the way in our
>world, for centuries or more

I see no evidence at all of a different gender ethic between the Wizarding 
World and that of the muggles around them. You can put aside the
Merope situation, but everything else *still* suggests the muggle world's
 gap between equality in theory and equality in practice.

Who is the Minister of Magic 
is book six and before that? Both men. Headmaster of Hogwarts? To the 
best of our knowledge, MM will be the first female in 100 years. 
(Considering Albus plus his predecessor.) Your psychotic political 
leaders gone amuck? Voldemort and Grindewald. Show me a 
woman in power, other than Judge Bones! (And 1 doesn't cut it
in a world with half the population female.)

Women in jobs? Pomfrey's a nurse, Madame Malkin runs a *clothing 
shop*, and there's whatssherface who runs the tea shop (don't kill me
 for forgetting her name), none of which rock the boat in terms of 
making feminist advances. Women at Hogwarts teach herbology, 
transfiguration, divination (mocked as *not* a hard science), and 
run the library; only Hooch as, basically, the gym teacher has a 
job that isn't traditional. As has been stated here before, Mrs. 
Weasley's a home-maker, and Narcissa Malfoy appears to be 
unemployed, too. (Okay, no idea what Lucius does, either.) Rita 
probably is the most "feminist" of them all, given that she has 
an independent profession and is rather ambitious in the way she
goes about collecting her info, shall we say. 

Onwards--

The girls of the girls' school, Beauxbatons, are presented as sex 
objects--although since they arrive when the kids are entering 
puberty, it's hard to separate the boys' perceptions of the 
Beauxbatons girls from how they'd be presented otherwise. 

Ron refers to Hermione jokingly as a "scarlet woman" for
being seen with multiple men in Rita's reporting, and I think
that is *very* telling about the conservative gender ethos in
the Wizarding World. First of all, Hermione--the brightest
of her age!--is most interesting to the wizarding press 
readers as a girl with an active social life, shall we say, *and* Ron is 
familiar with the idea that a woman with more than one
male associate is "bad." 

We *do* have two promising young women (Ginny and Hermione), 
but right now they're in a 
strange position to be judged. Many groused about the HBP 
making the girls stereotypical, but, eh, teen love is a natural 
phenomenon. All of the kids were lost in a sea of hormones in 
that book, so again, hard to judge them overall as examples. 

Our strongest adult women in terms of feminist examples are the
 women in combat, and even *they* present terrible examples for 
women focused solely on men: 
Bella LeStrange (psychotic follower, motivated by jealousy 
of those closer to Voldie than her) and Tonks (near to 
giving up all of her magic altogether, because Her Man won't love her.) 

The greatest women in the book as examples are 
mothers--Mrs. Longbottom and Harry's mom--who died/suffered for 
their kids. This fits in line with the woman-as-mother image and 
isn't especially feminist. (It isn't *against* women, of course, but just
not a breakthrough image.)

Bottom line is that I see no reason whatsoever to think the WW has
made much further advances in gender equality than the rest of the world
has.

Krista






From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Mon Nov 28 15:50:42 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:50:42 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <dmf7dd+t5qi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051128155042.53109.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143594

--- krista7 <erikog at one.net> wrote:

> Who is the Minister of Magic 
> is book six and before that? Both men.

There were female ministers of magic.

 Headmaster of
> Hogwarts? To the 
> best of our knowledge, MM will be the first female
> in 100 years. 

It's not her fault that headmasters tend to stick in
their job for 50 years and more. There was a female
headmaster in 19th century (she is mentioned in OoTP),
and she also was the manager of St. Mungo before
coming to Hogwarts. That's a powerful job in the
wizarding society.
And Madame Maxime is a contemporary Headmistress.

> Show
> me a 
> woman in power, other than Judge Bones! 

What about that top civil servant, Miss Umbridge? :-)

(And 1
> doesn't cut it
> in a world with half the population female.)
> 
> Women in jobs? Pomfrey's a nurse, Madame Malkin runs
> a *clothing 
> shop*, and there's whatssherface who runs the tea
> shop (don't kill me
>  for forgetting her name), none of which rock the
> boat in terms of 
> making feminist advances.

Women can be Healers, Aurors, quidditch players (have
you noticed that all the chasers on Irish team are
females?), Triwizard champions, members of Slug club
etc.

I'd say it's more equality that muggle world has.

 Women at Hogwarts teach
> herbology, 
> transfiguration, divination (mocked as *not* a hard
> science), 

But Tranfiguration is a harder science than Charms,
and a woman was a better teacher of Care for the
Magical creatures than a man, why do you discard the
fact that don't fit your theory?

> 
> Ron refers to Hermione jokingly as a "scarlet woman"
> for
> being seen with multiple men in Rita's reporting,
> and I think
> that is *very* telling about the conservative gender
> ethos in
> the Wizarding World. 

Nope, it only tells us that Ron is a MSP. ;-) I'll
grant you that.

Irene


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 28 16:04:14 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:04:14 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmda0n+p3ii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmf9pu+5gqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143595

Potioncat:
Whoa! You could knit a scarf-and-mitten set from all the current 
threads that are discussing "the dyanmics of the Snape family."  So I 
took a break from the posts and went back for some canon.

OoP, chapter 29:
After Harry began seeing Dementors in his mind, he uses "Protego" and 
saw three memories in Snape's mind. 
"--a Hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small 
dark-haired boy cried in a corner...A greasy-haired teenager sat 
alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, shooting 
down flies...A girl was laughing as a scrawny boy tried to mount a 
bucking broomstick--"

Snape repels him, they are going to continue,

"He was sure he had just broken into Snape's memories, that he had 
just seen scenes from Snape's childhood, and 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 
eys..."


HBP, chapter 30, Hermione is speaking:
"I was going through the rest of the old Prophets and there was a 
tiny announcement about Eileen Prince marrying a man called Tobias 
Snape, and then later an announcement saying that she'd given birth 
to a--" (Harry interrupts)

Then Hermione also says, "Tobias Snape was a Muggle from what it said 
in the Prophet."

Harry goes on to compare Snape to Riddle, and says that Snape is just 
like Riddle, rejecting his Muggle parent.


Returning now to the discussion:
 
> Carol responds:
>snip< 
> My problem is that I can't imagine a wedding announcement in the 
Daily
> Prophet announcing that the husband was a Muggle. What a strange 
thing
> to do! I doubt that blood status was a standard part of the
> announcements: "James Potter, pureblood, of __________ married Lily
> Evans, Muggleborn, of Little Whinging, Surrey, on the 8 June, 1978 
(or
> whatever). I think it the anouncement was just a plot device JKR 
used
> to identify Snape as a half-blood, with his mother as the witch.

Potioncat:
LOL, I wonder if Rita Skeeter was a new reporter at The Prophet, 
working on the "Weddings and Births" page. I could see her making a 
point of bloodlines, or anything else a bit off.(Never mind, she's 
too young, isn't she?) Actually Hermione's comment is "from what it 
said" Darn it, what did it say?

But, I think you're right, I think this section in HBP is to reveal 
to the reader that Snape's father is a Muggle. Whenever JKR has given 
us clues to Snape's family, she's revealed a stressed family. The 
grey underwear, the boy who looked like a plant that grew in the dark 
(sorry, from memory), the lonely teenager shooting flies, the man 
shouting at a woman. Now we have a "tiny" announcement that contains 
enough information to tell Hermione that Tobias is a Muggle. To me 
the fact that it was tiny...therefore smaller than others, says 
something in itself about the joyful event.

I do have to admit, something in Harry's reaction to this information 
makes me think he's taken the information too far, and may be jumping 
to conclusions, but that would be another thread.


Carol made some very good points about Tobias tolerating, or not, 
Eileen's magic; that Harry would have noticed that the man was 
wearing Muggle clothing; and that it's hard to imagine a witch 
cowering before a Muggle. I've summarized because snipping would made 
a mess of the post. I hope I didn't change the meaning of any of the 
points by listing them like this. Go upthread for her actual post

JKR's wording is man and woman. I'm not sure if JKR ever refers to 
Magic folk as men or women...did both of these people look like 
Muggles and none of us picked it up? Of course, in this memory, the 
words are man, woman, teenager, girl, boy.

Also in other posts, very good points have come up that abuse happens 
to all sorts of women that you might think unlikely; or that Eileen's 
magic may have become weak for some reason; or the hook-nosed man may 
or may not have been Tobias; this shouting may or may not have been a 
pattern. It's hard to guess which of these details was part of JKR's 
plan or which ones are ideas we've slipped in ourselves. 

Going back to the canon, this is what I think. JKR is giving us some 
information about Snape's family. Look at the OoP canon above, Harry 
reflects and thinks,"...the crying little boy who had watched his 
parents shouting was actually standing in front of him..."

JKR is as good as Snape at misleading with the truth...well, she's 
even better because she taught him. But based on the wording, I think 
Tobias is the man in the memory. Look at this again though. Although 
the actual scene is described as a shouting man, cowering woman, here 
the wording is "parents shouting." The woman may have been coming out 
of a cower, or she may have been cowering, but shouting back.

The straight forward reading would be that the two people shouting at 
each other were Snape's parents: Tobias and Eileen.

But to confuse things a bit, and others have suggested something 
similar, Hermione says "there was a tiny announcement...and then 
later an announcement saying she'd given birth..." She doesn't say 
how much later. The other possiblity is that the man and woman were 
Snape's parents, but the man wasn't Tobias. While I think it could 
be...I don't think it's very likely.

Potioncat: who thinks she did more to muddle this than to clear it 
up, and doesn't really know what she thinks about the Snapes of 
Spinner's End.


 








From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 16:20:52 2005
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:20:52 -0000
Subject: HBP: newbie to the discussion, random thoughts
In-Reply-To: <dmdo6k+b7re@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfap4+dps8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143596

Welcome Ragabast!
> 
> 1. It is no coincidence that Dumbledore's familiar is a phoenix; a
> bird that rises from its own ashes after a period of looking hideous.
>  Dumbledore looked horrible weeks before his death.  Then we see a
> phoenix rise from his funer pyre (note.. its a pyre that they used on
> him, not a burial)

Juli: It's not a popular theory, but I agree with you. I believe (or at least I want to believe) that Dumbledore will live again. He's just too much phoenix-like for him to just die. 

> 2.  Could it be possible that Snape's mother and Tom Riddle not only
> knew each other at school (50 years ago), but were intimate and had a
> child (perhaps after school and before LV's rise to power).  That
> child was Snape. 

Juli: That's a good theory, but Jo wrote on her site that Voldemort doesn't have a son...

Juli







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 28 16:38:44 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:38:44 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdskk+bcj7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfbqk+gq71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143597

 
> Alla:
> 
> Your POV has my deepest respect, but I still don't remember any 
> occasions from canon where Sirius is shown to be a liar. ( not 
> arguing that he loves Snape or anything, but I think he still says 
> the truth). Not Knowing things? Yes. Lying? Could you give me some 
> canon on that?

Potioncat:
No, I'm not calling Sirius a liar. I think Sirius is telling the 
truth as he sees it. He remembers Snape as a greasy oddball, up to 
his eyes in Dark Magic.(or something like that.)  Remus is less 
damning, but of course, Remus isn't as forth-coming as Sirius. So 
it's hard to tell. But, for example, if Book 7 started off with Z. 
Smith or C. McLaggen telling us something about Harry, I'd hold my 
judgement. Neither of them are known to be liars, but they aren't 
friends of Harry's.

Or a better example is Fred and George. All of us know the exact same 
things about the boys. Some of us see them as harmless pranksters, 
others see the pranks as cruel. So if we were describing the twins to 
someone who hadn't read the books, we'd give very different 
impressions.

And one last example, there are characters in the series who might be 
justified in calling Hermione "a frizzy-haired witch who in her 5th 
year  knew curses that adults wizards couldn't break!"

 
> Alla:
 
> He says the following :
> 
> "But as far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a 
Death 
> Eater - not that that measn much. Plenty of them were never caught. 
> And Snape's certainly clever and cunning enough to keep himself out 
> of trouble" - GoF, p.531. 

Potioncat: 
Yes, that was high praise from Sirius! And come to think of it, it 
sounds a little like Bella in Spinner's End.

Alla: 
> But actually here is the quote, which I think may come true ( well, 
> probably not but I would find it funny if it will)
> 
> " I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you are reformed, I know 
> better..." - OOP, paperback, p.520.
> 

Potioncat:
Oh, dear! That wouldn't be funny at all!







From erikog at one.net  Mon Nov 28 16:46:52 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:46:52 -0000
Subject: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <20051128155042.53109.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmfc9s+o5o5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143598


Irene writes:

>>Who is the Minister of Magic 
is book six and before that? Both men.
>There were female ministers of magic.

When? Are they prominent players now? (This is akin, to me, to the fact 
Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister--fabulous, but where are the other
 major women political figures, in her cabinet or afterwards?) 

 >>Headmaster of
Hogwarts? To the 
>>best of our knowledge, MM will be the first female
in 100 years. 

>It's not her fault that headmasters tend to stick in...

I didn't intend to make it sound as if it were poor MM's fault; 
mea culpa if it sounded like I did!

>>their job for 50 years and more. There was a female
>>headmaster in 19th century (she is mentioned in OoTP)
>>and she also was the manager of St. Mungo before
>>coming to Hogwarts. That's a powerful job in the
>>wizarding society.

Again, where is she now? Where are major women leaders
in the WW? 

>>And Madame Maxime is a contemporary Headmistress.

She's a headmistress at an all-girls' school; my assumption--just 
assumption here--is that the whole staff is female.

(Total aside: I never had the mental picture that Durmstrang is all-boys, 
as we saw in the movie. Do we know Dumstrang is all-boys?)


>>Show
>>me a 
>>woman in power, other than Judge Bones! 
>What about that top civil servant, Miss Umbridge? :-)

*shudders with horror* Okay, well, I have no idea what
to do with her, I admit. (Other than call the centaurs.)

>>Women in jobs? Pomfrey's a nurse, Madame Malkin runs
>>a *clothing 
>>shop*, and there's whatssherface who runs the tea
>>shop (don't kill me
>> for forgetting her name), none of which rock the
>>boat in terms of 
>>making feminist advances.
>Women can be Healers, Aurors, quidditch players (have
>you noticed that all the chasers on Irish team are
>females?), Triwizard champions, members of Slug club
>etc.
>I'd say it's more equality that muggle world has.

I did mention the nurse because healing, stereotypically, is an acceptable
 "woman's job"--comes from the nurturing female idea. I also pointed 
out that the female Aurors (example: Tonks) aren't really giving a good 
example for women (right now in the books).

The Slug Club is just anybody Slug thinks is socially connected/potentially 
prominent in society, so I don't think of that as an indicator of anything beyond
his mind.

I *did* forget the female athletes--the captain of the Quidditch team comes to mind. 

>>Women at Hogwarts teach
>>herbology, 
>>transfiguration, divination (mocked as *not* a hard
>>science), 
>But Tranfiguration is a harder science than Charms,
>and a woman was a better teacher of Care for the
>Magical creatures than a man, why do you discard the
>fact that don't fit your theory?

Not to be snarky/rude, but I didn't discuss either because I don't 
see how these are very strong points about gender stereotypes in 
the WW. E.g., Hagrid was inept. The fact that a woman replaced 
him and did a better job is not a major feminist statement on 
JKR's behalf--she'd made it clear just about anybody would do better. 
It's hard for me to judge the assumptions about the job itself simply because
the situation is so individual. 

In re: the "harder" science of Transfiguration or Charms, let me back 
up a sec to clarify my points. First of all, I was attempting to point 
out a.) the plethora of female teachers is consistent with the 
view that teaching children is a "female" job and 2.) of the women 
teaching/working at Hogwarts, most of them fit fairly stereotypical
 images of "women's topics." Beyond the nurse, there's
 Divination (seen as fluffy) and Herbology (a "nurturing" teaching job). 
I listed Transfiguration in order to include all evidence, even though,
in this case, I can't make much of it: I see as neither stereotypical 
nor mold-breaking, simply because there's nothing equivalent in 
the muggle curriculum. 


>>Ron refers to Hermione jokingly as a "scarlet woman"
>>for
>>being seen with multiple men in Rita's reporting,
>>and I think
>>that is *very* telling about the conservative gender
>>ethos in
>>the Wizarding World. 
>Nope, it only tells us that Ron is a MSP. ;-) I'll
>grant you that.

I'll quote Ginny here--he's a "filthy hypocrite"!

Krista







From Nanagose at aol.com  Mon Nov 28 16:50:24 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:50:24 -0000
Subject: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <dmf7dd+t5qi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfcgg+sh7m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143599

> Ceriden writes:
> 
> I was suggesting that, culturally, Eileen grew up in a world where 
> no witch I've seen (with the exception of Merope Gaunt, who came 
> from a very odd family indeed and didn't socialize much, from the 
> way I read that scene) would ever tolerate abuse. 
> Subservient is not the WW way.  While, it is, or was, the way in our
> world, for centuries or more

Krista: 
> Women in jobs? Pomfrey's a nurse, Madame Malkin runs a *clothing 
> shop*, and there's whatssherface who runs the tea shop (don't kill 
> me for forgetting her name), none of which rock the boat in terms of 
> making feminist advances.

Christina:

Madame Rosmerta runs the bar, which I would say requires a fair bit of
toughness on her part.

Krista:
> Women at Hogwarts teach herbology, 
> transfiguration, divination (mocked as *not* a hard science), and 
> run the library; only Hooch as, basically, the gym teacher has a 
> job that isn't traditional.

Christina:

I'd say that Herbology (the subject of choice of Neville Longbottom,
by the way, a MALE) goes hand-in-hand with Care of Magical Creatures,
both nurturing jobs that require patience and skill with living
things.  The Herbology teacher might be a woman, but what about
Hagrid- he is one of the most nurturing and motherly characters in the
whole series!  Divination might not be a hard science, but it is also
taught partly by a MALE Centaur.  Transfiguration is by no means
fluffy, and is a serious branch of magic.  It's taught by a woman now,
but it was Dumbledore's field as well.  Also, Professor Sinistra is a
woman who teaches Astronomy.  I'm pretty sure that the Arithmancy
(aka, *math*) teacher, Professor Vector, is also a woman (the Lexicon
says so, but I can't find it in the books).  How's that for untraditional?

There's a great page on the Lexicon here:

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/hogwarts/hogwarts_teachers.html

that shows that the faculty/teaching positions at Hogwarts are split
down the middle in terms of gender.  I'd call that pretty progressive.

Krista:
> The girls of the girls' school, Beauxbatons, are presented as sex 
> objects

Christina:

Beauxbatons isn't a girls school though; aren't they co-ed?  I'd argue
that both the girls from Beauxbatons *and* the boys from Durmstrang
are both equally stereotyped.  While we're on the subject of GOF,
isn't Cedric fairly stereotyped as well, as the pretty boy?  Somebody
correct me if I'm wrong (I don't have GOF on me), but didn't one of
the boys comment that he essentially didn't have enough brains to fill
a teacup?

Krista:
> First of all, Hermione--the brightest
> of her age!--is most interesting to the wizarding press 
> readers as a girl with an active social life

Christina:

Hermione is most interesting to the wizarding press readings as a girl
connected to the celebrity Harry Potter, and that connection is though
her social life.  

Krista:
> Bottom line is that I see no reason whatsoever to think the WW has
> made much further advances in gender equality than the rest of the 
> world has.

Christina:

I guess I just don't see what being "feminist" has to do with
Ceriden's arguments.  Every single women in the WW could be a
housewife, and her argument could be completely valid.  The women in
the WW *don't* tolerate abuse, and in the vast majority of cases in
the books, they are completely in control.  Mrs. Weasley is pretty
dominant in her marriage.  Pomfrey is the master of her domain and is
very tough.  Tonks and Lupin disagree on what they believe their
relationship status to be; Tonks refuses to take no for an answer. 
Fleur is extremely assertive at the end of HBP when Mrs. Weasley
assume she won't want to marry Bill.  Harry tells Ginny they can't see
each other anymore, and although we don't know the eventual outcome of
that ship yet, I think there's every indication that Ginny's thoughts
at the time were, "yeah right, that's what you think."  Hermione is
constantly ordering Harry and Ron around.  She uses Cormac McLaggan to
make Ron jealous, manipulating both guys.  In OotP, we saw how Lily
stood up to two boys (three if you count Snape) her age and completely
told them off (which has *nothing* to do with motherly strength). 
Narcissa defies the Dark Lord's wishes in order to protect her son. 
The group that picks up Harry in OotP is about half female (Tonks,
Hestia Jones, and Emmeline Vance).  To my knowledge, the only person
we've heard about that was dangerous enough to Voldemort to be killed
personally (excluding the Potters) was a woman, Dorcas Meadows.  Look
all you want at career choices and such of the women in the WW, but
it's their interactions with men that are important.  And as Ceriden
said, the women are quite tough, particularly in regards to facing
their men.

Also, Irene made a lot of really good points, so I snipped most of
what she replied to, but in looking at individual female characters,
I'd argue that we have to also look at the men to get a fair
comparison.  McGonagall is shown as firm but fair; Snape is biased and
snarky.  Bellatrix Lestrange is pretty pathetic is her devotion to LV,
but is that any different from Peter Pettigrew's eager role as lapdog
to James and later to LV?  Even Filch is pretty pathetic is his
devotion to (er...obsession with?) his female cat.  Luna Lovegood is
just as brave as Neville Longbottom.  Hermione is far more
conscientious than Ron or Harry.  She has her say more often than not,
which is impressive when you consider the fact that her voice is
outnumbered 2:1.


Christina







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Mon Nov 28 17:09:10 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:09:10 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <dmfc9s+o5o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051128170910.96966.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143600


--- krista7 <erikog at one.net> wrote:
> 
> Again, where is she now?

On a portrait in Dumbledore's study. :-)

 Where are major women
> leaders
> in the WW? 

For all we know, the current manager of St. Mungo
might be a female. I don't think it's mentioned in the
books.

> 
> >>And Madame Maxime is a contemporary Headmistress.
> 
> She's a headmistress at an all-girls' school; 

It's not all-girls in the book, only in the movie.

> Do we know Dumstrang is
> all-boys?)

No, it's not.

> 
> The Slug Club is just anybody Slug thinks is
> socially connected/potentially 
> prominent in society, so I don't think of that as an
> indicator of anything beyond
> his mind.

I think it's a very good indicator in fact. Slughorn
collects exactly the people were are discussing:
future power players of the wizarding world. The fact
that he invites girls just as readily is very telling
to me.

>> the muggle curriculum. 

I thought of the closest equivalent for
Transfiguration on the muggle curriculum. Physics is
as good as I could come up with.

> 
> I'll quote Ginny here--he's a "filthy hypocrite"!

I'm not sure what to make of Ginny's behaviour: on the
one hand she makes it very clear that Ron's "brotherly
protection" is not acceptable to her. But what does it
mean really? Is it not the general norm, just Ron
being an idiot, so Ginny puts him in place, or does
Ron actually represents the society views, and Ginny
is on a social revolution mission? :-)

Irene


		
___________________________________________________________ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com



From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Mon Nov 28 04:56:37 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 04:56:37 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dmdve3+p58g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dme2m5+r2hb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143601

Carol wrote:
 
> Carol, who thinks that Severus, whether he was eleven or seventeen,
> would have been more than a match for James when he wasn't caught
> off-guard with two (or more) against one

Which raises an interesting question
if the James vs. Snape feud had 
been going on since they first meet then who dominated the early 
meetings? Unless James and friends were also highly advanced when 
the entered Hogwarts Snape should have enjoyed tactical superiority 
in any engagement over them (it'd be like Harry in OotP suddenly 
hexing a group of first years
would they even have a chance?). 

People dismiss Lupin's comment about Snape being jealous of James 
Quidditch talents as impossible yet I'm not sure it's without merit 
(of course there other reasons too). Snape has memories of a boy 
with a bucking broom (OotP), brooms seem to buck when they're being 
hexed, the boy is not positively identified as Snape, and we know 
that Snape knows a broom jinx (since he saved Harry from one in 
PS/SS). It's within reason that we may have saw James having his 
broom hexed by Snape
odd
it's in front of a crowd too (maybe James 
learned humiliation from Snape).  

Quick_Silver (who thinks it's odd Snape is all for fair play
doesn't 
seem very Slytherin of him)










From bartl at sprynet.com  Mon Nov 28 12:25:28 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:25:28 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pulling Off Good Snape? WAS Re: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <dmdajr+9fkv@eGroups.com>
References: <dmdajr+9fkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438AF738.4010505@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143602

lucianam73 wrote:
> f) Not joining the battle of the MoM so as not to blow his cover;

Bart:
Once again, I have yet to hear anybody explain why Snape called in the 
OOP in a timely manner for the battle of the Ministry of Magic. To me, 
this is the greatest indication that he's on the side of the good guys.

I don't know how many people here have read the James Bond books (rather 
than seeing the movies), but a major theme in the books is that, on the 
side of good, Bond has to do some rather evil things (the short story, A 
VIEW TO A KILL, which had no relation to the movie other than the title, 
was entirely about that theme). The television series THE PRISONER, had 
a major point that Number 6 could not tell whose side the leaders of the 
Village were on, because, in the spy game, while the goals may be 
different, the tactics are often the same.

And that is the point with Snape; it is impossible to tell his motives 
from his actions. All we can do is look at the clues. And note that, at 
this point, Voldemort's greatest setback since his rebirth has been the 
battle of the MoM, and Snape was instrumental in that setback, and has 
yet to explain himself.

	Bart






From maria.elmvang at gmail.com  Mon Nov 28 13:37:56 2005
From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:37:56 +0100
Subject: Does Dumbledore have a horcrux?
Message-ID: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143603

I have recently heard a very interesting theory, which I would like to put to you. I don't know if I agree with it myself, but I'd never heard it before, so I was interested in hearing what other people thought of it.

Snape (DDM! of course ;) ) killed DD knowing that he (DD) had at some point killed somebody and created a horcrux....

Is this at all conceivable?

Maria






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 19:17:50 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:17:50 -0000
Subject: Snape's childhood WAS: Re: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmepm5+4thl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfl4u+nh69@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143604

Ceridwen:
> I should probably jump in here.  I think, at least on this current
go-round, that I'm the one who mentioned that Eileen would have too
much power to wield over a Muggle Tobias, to allow herself to be abused.  
<snip>  If Eileen Prince was a Pureblood or close enough to it not to
have been culturally undermined by Muggle values of half a century
ago, then it's less likely that she would tolerate abuse.  IMO.
<snip>> 
> Merope was not exposed to very much in the way of the WW's attitudes
concerning women.  She was browbeaten at home, and considered no
better than a Squib.  If she attended Hogwarts at all, she was
probably so cowed by that time that she kept to herself there, too. 
But somehow, I doubt if she went. <snip> Merope was the direct
opposite of the witches we meet in the rest of the HP books.  And, it
was probably due to her upbringing and isolation from other WW folk. 
She had no feeling of self-worth, so she felt worthless. <snip>

> Since I've never studied psychology formally <snip> I won't dare go 
> into the rest of your message, about Snape's behavior and the
parents being the 'sun' of the child. But, these are my impressions of
the WW, the way women are portrayed and perceived, Merope Gaunt's
outside-the-loop example, and what I think Eileen Prince grew up
seeing that would have made her much less a candidate for tolerating
abuse than otherwise strong women in our own world.

Carol responds:
I agree with Ceridwen that Merope Gaunt and Eileen Prince aren't
really comparable figures in the respects she cited. Merope believed
that she was a Squib and didn't dare defend herself against her wizard
father. Eileen knew quite well that she was a witch, having gone to
Hogwarts and been elected president of the Gobstones Club. She must
have been fairly good at Potions, too, to have taken NEWT Potions and
retained her book. And *somebody*, either Eileen or one of her
parents, must have taught little Severus some of the spells he knew
before he entered Hogwarts (and allowed him the use of a wand).

How, then, can we account for a woman who must be Eileen cowering as a
hook-nosed man shouts at her and her small son (Severus at perhaps age
three to five) cries in a corner? From the little we know of her,
Eileen doesn't seem like the type to be afraid of a mere Muggle. I
think that after her marriage to the Muggle Tobias failed (perhaps
little Sevvie performed some accidental magic?) or Tobias died, she
returned to her parents' home and the man who is shouting at her,
terrifying both her and her child, is her father--who would have
psychological power over her as well as magical power that he's not
afraid to use. I can see Eileen, even as an adult, fearing her father
(as Merope did). I can't see her fearing a Muggle.

And we still have to account for young Severus knowing all those
spells. A tolerant Muggle father who would allow such a thing doesn't
fit with the abusive hook-nosed man. And we also see the teenage Snape
as pallid and apparently neglected, like a plant that doesn't receive
enough sunlight. Perhaps his mother died and his grandparents (at
least the grandfather) raised him without love as the half-blood
offspring of their rebellious daughter's marriage to a Muggle. (She
could have defied her father after she became of age and yet still
feared him.)

The shouting man being Eileen's father is the only way I can account
for the odd mixture of elements in what we know of Severus's
childhood. (He also seems to have tried to ride a broom before
learning how to ride one at school. The laughing girl in another of
Snape's early memories is almost certainly a witch, an unlikely guest
in the home of the Muggle Tobias Snape. Could it be Bellatrix, and
could she have hexed the broom as a cruel prank? Brooms don't normally
throw off riders who aren't afraid to fly, and Sevvie seems more
determined than fearful.)

While I believe that young Severus did indeed suffer neglect and
psychological abuse, which he countered by learning (and inventing?)
as many hexes as possible, perhaps with his mother's help, I think
that the person responsible for the abuse and neglect was no Muggle
but Sevvie's Wizard grandfather, the Full-Blood Prince.

Carol, borrowing Steve (bboy-_mn)'s term "full-blood" since we don't
know for sure that Grandpa Prince was a pureblood (though I suspect
that he was, and a Slytherin, too)






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 28 15:51:00 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:51:00 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?
In-Reply-To: <dmd2f7+l9k4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmf914+nr8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143605

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> 
wrote:

<SNIP>

If, however, Snape goes OoC to apologize to Harry for
> "abusing" him, I'll believe that JKR has lost all artistic integrity
> and knuckled under to the wishes of the PC contingent. But that will,
> of course, be only my opinion.)

Would she be knuckling under?  I don't know.  Was she knuckling under 
when she included DD's speech at the Dursleys early in HBP (that is, 
the speech where he largely repealed the speech he had previously made 
at the end of OOTP)?  Was she knuckling under when she used the scar 
on Harry's hand as a major "prop" despite much opining in the fandom 
that we would never hear anything else about Umbridge or the scar?  Is 
that why she ran away from the tone of OOTP like a bloodhound who 
smells bear on the wind?  Or is it just that JKR, bless her heart, 
lets things get away from her sometimes and she's faced with a "didn't 
mean to say that, ought to have done this, should have taken care of 
that" situation where she is forced to play "catch-up" on a lot of 
issues?  Perhaps this is why HBP so strongly resembled a lot of 
fanfic, because fanfic does have the advantage of lancing the boils 
the author unwittingly raises on the buttocks of the story.  

JKR seems to be a prime victim of the Rule of Three: what I hear 
myself say, what I actually say, and what they hear me say are very 
different things and often not very close to one another.  We saw that 
when she got blindsided about shipping, about which she felt she had 
been pretty clear in books and interviews.  I think she had been 
pretty clear, too, frankly.  I think she's also been very clear that 
Snape is a horrible person -- a horrible person with secrets and a 
part to play, but still a horrible person -- and she genuinely doesn't 
understand why anyone would like the man.  Given that she seems to 
favor karmic comeuppances, and she doesn't seem to believe in "cheap" 
grace, I'd say a horrible man that nobody should like probably has a 
lot of reparation to face before achieving redemption.



> 
> Carol, expecting that she and Lupinlore will be equally surprised by
> JKR's revelations about Snape in Book 7 and certain that at least one
> of us will be severely disappointed in the outcome of the Snape arc
>

Actually, I don't know if very many people across the spectrum are 
going to be terribly surprised or severely disappointed.  I expect the 
last book will be a "by-the-numbers" exercise much like HBP.  Harry 
kills Voldy: Check.  Hermione and Ron: Check.  Horcruxes: Check.  
Finish with the Dursleys: Check.  Appearance from Umbridge: Check.  
Polish off Percy: Check.  Comeuppance for Snape:  Check.  Redemption: 
Check.  Green-eyed, red-haired babies: Check.  Something for 
everybody: Check.   I would not be at all surprised if, like HBP, it 
turns out to be a book that does not severely disappoint very many 
people, but doesn't greatly please very many, either.


Lupinlore










From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 19:25:46 2005
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:25:46 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmf9pu+5gqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfljq+4134@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143606

Potioncat quotes canon: 
> OoP, chapter 29:
> After Harry began seeing Dementors in his mind, he uses "Protego" 
and 
> saw three memories in Snape's mind. 
> "--a Hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a 
small 
> dark-haired boy cried in a corner...A greasy-haired teenager sat 
> alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, 
shooting 
> down flies...A girl was laughing as a scrawny boy tried to mount a 
> bucking broomstick--"
> 
> Snape repels him, they are going to continue,
> 
> "He was sure he had just broken into Snape's memories, that he had 
> just seen scenes from Snape's childhood, and 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 
> eys..."
> 


Potioncat continues

>  JKR is giving us some 
> information about Snape's family. Look at the OoP canon above, 
Harry 
> reflects and thinks,"...the crying little boy who had watched his 
> parents shouting was actually standing in front of him..."
> 
> JKR is as good as Snape at misleading with the truth...well, she's 
> even better because she taught him. But based on the wording, I 
think 
> Tobias is the man in the memory. Look at this again though. 
Although 
> the actual scene is described as a shouting man, cowering woman, 
here 
> the wording is "parents shouting." The woman may have been coming 
out 
> of a cower, or she may have been cowering, but shouting back.
> 
> The straight forward reading would be that the two people shouting 
at 
> each other were Snape's parents: Tobias and Eileen.

Lyra: 
On another list, someone wrote that seeing parents shouting at each 
other is JKR''s "kid shorthand" for indicating a bad situation at 
home. I tend to agree, and I think that's what Potioncat is leaning 
towards (Hope I'm not putting words in her mouth.) I never disputed 
Harry's interpretation that it was the Snape family -- mother, 
father, son (though the fact that he didn't notice muggle clothes 
does bother me a bit). He sees two adults shouting and a preschooler!
Snape crying. Harry didn't have a good home situation himself, and 
one element of it was a shouting adult -- in his case Vernon 
shouting at him. It's natural for Harry to emphathize with such a 
situation.

Putting aside issues of whether a muggle could abuse a witch, the 
scene can indicate an unhappy home even if there's no real abuse 
going on. As Potioncat points out, the couple are both shouting in 
Harry's recollection, it's apprently not a one-sided exchange. 
Tobias and Eileen could be arguing over money, or lack thereof, 
which probably caused at least as much tension in the household as 
any magic might have done. And continuing problems over money or 
similar issues can make one bitter and sarcastic as much as living 
with abuse can.

I wonder if this scene is tied in with the "fathering" issues JKR 
mentions. In her Time magazine interview, JKR said "As I look back 
over the five published books, I realize that it's a kind of litany 
of bad fathers. That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where 
people don't get good fathering." 

How many fathers do we actually see in the books? Vernon, who does 
an abysmal job with Dudley; Arthur, who is probably the best of the 
lot; Lucius, raising a baby DE; Tom Riddle Sr. who abandons his 
child before it's born; James, who dies defending his son before 
really getting much chance to be a father, workaholic Barty Sr. who 
sends his son to prison then sneaks him out. Some of the fathers we 
see are just brief snippets, or less: Catonic Frank Longbottom; the 
senior Potter who took in Sirius Black as a second son, shocked-to-
learn-he-married-a-witch Mr. Finnegan; and probably shouting Tobias 
Snape. If you accept that "fathering" is a sort of theme in the 
stories, it seems likely the shouting man would be the father of 
Snape, a major character, rather than the father of his mother, a 
minor prescence at best.

Lyra (as always, unsure if she's added anything worthwhile)











From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Mon Nov 28 14:15:11 2005
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:15:11 -0000
Subject: Just a pointer that Harry may survive?????
Message-ID: <dmf3df+ac8q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143607

Didn't JKR say in some interview that the last chapter in the 
seventh book is some kind of an epilogue and is going to discuss 
about the life of the survivors?? And if the scar is mentioned 
in this chapter (albiet as the last word..) it means Harry is 
also mentioned ...and if it is a chapter of survivors and Harry 
is in it -- that means Harry survives??? 
Just hopeful (or rather wishful) thinking ......

scam.










From nymphandoracallel at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 18:37:34 2005
From: nymphandoracallel at yahoo.com (Rebecca Johnson)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ghosts?
In-Reply-To: <dmdago+u749@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051128183734.82786.qmail@web35915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143608

    Sorry if this has already been brought up, I've been a member for a while but haven't posted because I'm trying to catch up reading everything...
   
  Anyways, the use of Ghosts in HP is something that has always bothered me because it doesn't seem to make sense...at least to me...
   
  CH3ed wrote:
  > (unless your fear of death causes you to become a ghost).
   
  Is this true? Is that how you become a ghost?  Were Myrtle and Professor Binns, the History of Magic teacher, scared of death?  Myrtle was a distraught school girl who had no idea death was coming, if anything I would have put her more in the depressed category (not necessarily suicidal, but I wouldn't have thought she was scared per say of death).
  
  Binns was said to have died in his sleep one day and then just got up went to go and teach leaving his body behind, could Binns have been scared of death while sleeping, or would it be an overall living fear of the unkown after death takes over?

  There are not a large amount of ghosts which seem to be in the WW although there were many at the Death Day party, I would think that if being afraid of death was what turned one into a ghost that there would be a whole lot more ghosts floating around, esp for all the years past... do ghosts ever get released from this world or are they forever stuck roaming the earth?

  Many of the ghosts do not seem particularly upset at being ghosts. I had always thought that you had to perform some sort of spell which binded you to the earth after you had died, I didn't think that it was a fear of death.

  Another Ghost, the the Grey Lady is a highly intellectual young lady who has never found true love as she never found a man up to her standards, according to JKR, she sounds very level headed and not someone who would be scared of death or OTOH be one to make herself into a ghost in the afterlife.
   
  Can ghosts perform magic? What sort of powers do they have, if any, and have there been any mentions of dark wizards who have become ghosts and are now able to forever be in LV's army??
   
  If anyone has any ideas that can help sort me out or if it has already been discussed and you could send me there, that'd be great!
   
  NymphandoraCallel










From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Mon Nov 28 18:02:02 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:02:02 +0100
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
Message-ID: <011801c5f445$d6bbcd80$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143609

Constance Vigilance wrote:
> Let's review: we have a carefully constructed fake death scene. The
> death scene is quite convincing except for the lack of one dark mark
<snip>
> At the end of the book, we have another death scene. <snip> The vast
> majority of readers believe the death scene is real. Exactly because
> of the presence of dragon's blood at Slughorn's is the reason I
> believe Dumbledore's death is faked.

Miles:
There are differences much more important than the Dark Mark. The most
important one: there was no corpse in Chapter 4. And about the dragon's blood, why should Dumbledore use it for his own faked death? It is not difficult to fake blood, no need to use Dragon's blood. We can be pretty sure, that "faking human blood" is not among the 12 uses of Dragon's blood Dumbledore and Flamel discovered...

hg_skmg wrote:
> First, the Dark Mark. <snip> Lupin assumes that Gibbon did it, but 
> if he did, it seems to leave not enough time for Rosmerta to see 
> it, Dumbledore & Harry to arrive, etc.  I wonder if he left the top 
> of the tower so quickly because he saw it was already there.

Miles:
True is, we didn't see what happened when Gibbon went to the tower. But IMO there is no reason to think that something different happened. To cast the Dark Mark is a question of seconds only, so Gibbon did have no reason to stay on top of the tower. There was no need for Rosmerta to see it before DD and Harry arrived, the only thing for her to do was using her coin to contact Draco when they arrived.

hg_skmg wrote:
> Second, I think it's more JKR's intent that Harry should "go it 
> alone" than Dumbledore's; however, CV says it in such a way that I 
> can envision Dumbledore being motivated, at least in part, to fake 
> his death for this purpose.

Miles:
I agree, that he could have had a motivation to fake his death. But I really doubt that he had the chance to do it. To fake this death scene, he would have had to anticipate not only a showdown with Deatheaters. He was surprised that they managed to come to Hogwarts. I do not think this was faked surprise, because this bunch of murderers in his school, endangering every student - no, Dumbledore would never take that kind of risk. But without knowing Deatheaters coming to Hogwarts, how could he plan the scenario on top of the tower, or some similar one?

lagattalucianese wrote:
> My personal theory is that what Snape is doing "behind the curtain" 
> is creating some sort of reverse Horcrux, that leaves the soul 
> intact, even while killing and even fragmenting the body, and 
> transfers the soul into a temporary host (Fawkes?) until the body 
> can be restored or a new body found.

Miles:
Is there any clue in canon for this? I do not see any, but I do see many clues strictly against it. E.g., Dumbledore is absolutely not afraid of death. He would never gamble with his soul just to stay alive for some time longer. And I really don't believe that Rowling comes up with a totally new concept like "reverse Horcruxes". When the soul is intact and the body dies, all she told us up to now is that this soul either leaves our world or stays here as a ghost, when the dead wizard is afraid of being dead.  And to bring in the meta killer argument: Rowling stated in interviews, that characters who die in her books are really dead and do not return.

Miles






From dizzydz33 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 19:29:09 2005
From: dizzydz33 at yahoo.com (dizzydz33)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:29:09 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore Dying
Message-ID: <dmflq5+61jp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143610

I know this has probably been posted a lot but I just finished 
the book and feel really bad because Professor Dumbledore has 
died. This probably sounds ridiculous but I can't stop thinking 
about why J.K. would kill him off and it won't stop bothering me. 
So if anyone knows how to deal with this, your help would be much appreciated. 

Thanks

"dizzydz33"







From Nanagose at aol.com  Mon Nov 28 19:52:30 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:52:30 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dme2m5+r2hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfn5u+ce9c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143611

Quick_Silver
> People dismiss Lupin's comment about Snape being jealous of James 
> Quidditch talents as impossible yet I'm not sure it's without merit 
> (of course there other reasons too).

Christina:

We've seen jealousy as a powerful motivator before, but James wouldn't
have had the chance to show off his Quidditch talents right away. 
Harry was the youngest Quidditch player in a long time, so there's no
way James could have played right at the start of school.  I do think
that Snape developed some jealously issues surrounding James and
Quidditch; at the very least, I can see him being very resentful of
the "jock" status James must have had, but I think that these issues
all arose after some initial animosity between James and Snape was
established.

Quick_Silver
> Snape has memories of a boy 
> with a bucking broom (OotP), brooms seem to buck when they're being 
> hexed, the boy is not positively identified as Snape, and we know 
> that Snape knows a broom jinx (since he saved Harry from one in 
> PS/SS). It's within reason that we may have saw James having his 
> broom hexed by Snape
odd
it's in front of a crowd too (maybe James 
> learned humiliation from Snape).

Christina:

That's an interesting thought- I just love speculation on those weird
little snippets that we get from Snape's head.  However, if the boy
was James, I think that Harry would have recognized him easily (he
looks just like his father and picks him out of the crowd in "Snape's
Worst Memory" easily).  Also, Snape's memory features a girl laughing
at the boy on the broomstick; I find it much easier to believe that a
girl was laughing at the skinny, unattractive weird kid than the
popular athlete.

Christina






From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Mon Nov 28 20:33:28 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:33:28 -0000
Subject: No Hogwarts Express at the end of HBP?
In-Reply-To: <dm7q4a+9l0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfpio+k32i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143613

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kelleyaynn" <kelleyaynn at y...>
wrote:
>
> Can anyone think of any significance for the book not ending with the 
> trip home on the Hogwarts Express? I believe every other HP book ended 
> at King's Cross. It makes me wonder if the seventh book will pick up 
> essentially where HBP left off - if maybe there is more that will 
> happen on this day, or before Harry gets back to Privet Drive that we 
> don't know about yet.
 
 I think that the 7th book will start off exactly where the 6th book
ends. For one thing, I feel that there will be some discussion of
Dumbledore's will, which is where I think Harry will be formally
introduced to Albus' brother Aberforth. Furthermore, I do not feel
that timewise, there is any time to waste. If all of this story is to
unfold in one more year, Harry has go to get a move on. I think we wil
see the wedding, the last trip to Privet drive, and some revelations
at Godric's Hollow all during the summer, because I firmly believe
Harry and his amazing sidekicks WILL return to Hogwarts.  I think
there may be no more Hogwarts Express until the end perhaps.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 28 20:12:26 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:12:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gender in the WW
References: <dmfc9s+o5o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009301c5f458$0e067210$7f73400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143614

I felt like I had to add my thoughts on this matter.:-)  I don't think it's 
necessary to look at each female individually.  To me the books look a lot 
like our world, no more, no less.  It's great that the founders were split 
down the middle when it came to gender.  It's great Madam Maxime is a 
headmistress at a co-ed school.  Yes, Hermione and Ginny can use men they 
don't have crushes on.

I'm just not seeing the WW as coming across as all that different than our 
own world, which also has independent women, women who work in the 
government or other powerful positions, and also women who are abused.  The 
Weasleys I would definitely say have very old-fashioned ideas about gender 
roles--it's not just Ron, but the twins too, who feel protective about Ginny 
dating, and plenty of girls in our world in that situation would also enjoy 
making big feminist speeches or turning around and humiliating them for 
feeling that way.  Nobody seems to find their ideas bizarre the way they 
probably would if Ginny was worried about one of her brothers dating. 
Slughorn has girls in the Slug Club now, but wasn't the Club in the Pensieve 
all boys?  To me that seemed like it was a reflection of our world again: 
when Tom Riddle was at school, this sort of thing was a guy thing.  Now it's 
co-ed.

Anyway, the main point here was that women witches could not let themselves 
be abused by men and I'm just not seeing why they couldn't, considering 
plenty of independent women are abused in our own world.  In fact, if it's 
Tobias in that scene, where is he abusing her, if by abuse we mean physical 
abuse?  He's yelling at her.  Perhaps Eileen does not automatically respond 
to an argument by whipping out her wand on her Muggle husband--if I were 
married to a wizard I wouldn't stand for that, I would hope--bit scary to 
think of a wizard shutting his Muggle wife up with Magic.

It didn't seem odd to me at all to learn that the man who was yelling at 
Eileen might have been a Muggle, since Muggles can yell and hurt that way as 
much as wizards can.  Perhaps one day Eileen snapped and murdered Tobias. 
In fact, perhaps Snape sat there the whole time *wishing* she would zap the 
guy, imagining how he would never let a Muggle talk like that to him and 
that was a popular sentiment with the DEs.  Although we've heard about 
Magic/Muggle unions, we've really only seen one Witch/Muggle relationship in 
all of canon, and that's the one where the witch wound up dying of a broken 
heart.  We've also only seen close-up one Muggle/Wizard family situation and 
that's the one where the Muggles continue to yell at the Wizard despite 
being hexed in the past.  Making it a generalization that if you've got one 
person cowering and one yelling that the one yelling has to be the Witch 
seems to simplify human nature too much.

-m 





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 20:59:43 2005
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:59:43 -0000
Subject: Does Dumbledore have a horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dmfr3v+d55h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143615

Maria Elmvang <maria.elmvang at g...> wrote:
>
> I have recently heard a very interesting theory, which I would like 
to put to you. I don't know if I agree with it myself, but I'd never 
heard it before, so I was interested in hearing what other people 
thought of it.
> 
> Snape (DDM! of course ;) ) killed DD knowing that he (DD) had at some 
point killed somebody and created a horcrux....
> 
> Is this at all conceivable?

zgirnius:
No.

I think Dumbledore makes it abundantly clear that he thinks making a 
Horcrux is an extremely evil act. There is no way he would do so.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 21:13:13 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:13:13 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmfljq+4134@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfrt9+otmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143616

Potioncat quoted canon: 
<snip> "--a Hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a 
> small dark-haired boy cried in a corner..." <snip>
> "He was sure he had just broken into Snape's memories, that he had 
just seen scenes from Snape's childhood, and 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 ey[e]s..."
<snip commentary>
 
> Lyra responded: 
<snip> I never disputed Harry's interpretation that it was the Snape
family -- mother, father, son (though the fact that he didn't notice
muggle clothes does bother me a bit). He sees two adults shouting and
a preschooler!Snape crying. <snip>
> 
As Potioncat points out, the couple are both shouting in 
> Harry's recollection, it's apprently not a one-sided exchange. 
<snip>
> I wonder if this scene is tied in with the "fathering" issues JKR 
> mentions. In her Time magazine interview, JKR said "As I look back 
> over the five published books, I realize that it's a kind of litany 
> of bad fathers. That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where 
> people don't get good fathering." <snip>
> 
> If you accept that "fathering" is a sort of theme in the 
> stories, it seems likely the shouting man would be the father of 
> Snape, a major character, rather than the father of his mother, a 
> minor prescence at best.

Carol notes:
While I can certainly understand this perspective, a grandfather could
be as incapable of good fathering as a father. More important,
however, Harry's perception (provided via the narrator) doesn't match
the actual memory. Since the memories are Snape's, I'm sure he's right
that the child in all the memories is Severus. But he's *assuming*,
perhaps based on physical resemblance, that the man in the earliest
memory is Severus's father (and the woman is his mother). But note
that his *interpretation* shows the "parents shouting" at each other,
whereas the actual memory shows the *man* shouting and the woman
"cowering." The interpretation does not match the memory, which Harry
has seen only moments before.

We know from experience how often Harry's interpretations have been
wrong. Someone in another thread mentioned Cedric, whom Harry liked
and respected until he sees him with Cho, at which point he suddenly
"realize[s]" that Cedric is just "a useless pretty boy who didn't have
enough brains to fill an eggcup" (GoF Am. ed. 398). This "realization"
 conflicts with the solid evidence available to the reader that Cedric
is an intelligent and thoughtful boy who believes in fair play. (There
are many other examples of Harry's misinterpretations, perhaps better
ones than I've cited here, but my point is simply that just because
Harry thinks something is true doesn't make it true.)

I do appreciate Harry's sudden (and brief) flash of empathy for Snape
(too bad the Occlumency lessons didn't end with a better mutual
understanding based on the common bond of bad childhoods), but his
swiftly drawn conclusion that the man and woman are Severus's parents,
though natural, is not necessarily accurate, and his view of the woman
as shouting blatantly contradicts the evidence.

Maybe JKR forgot what she had just written, which is certainly
possible. She does sometimes forget things (like the fact that Bill's
arms are full of floorplans when he flicks his wand to vanish them in
OoP). Or maybe Harry's attribution of shouting to a woman who is
actually cowering is a clue that his interpretation is wrong, as is so
often the case (not wrong in the essential respect that little Severus
came from an unhappy home, but wrong that the man and woman were his
parents).

Carol, still sure for reasons previously stated that the man in the
memory is not Muggle!Tobias but Grandpa Prince and not at all
convinced that Spinner's End was Severus's childhood home






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 21:25:47 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:25:47 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
In-Reply-To: <dmerai+ksg0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfskr+8vfr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143617

Brothergib  wrote: 
" I do not have a firm enough grasp of British law to argue the 
legal angle. BUT, if DD and Snape have concocted a plan that 
requires the 'murder' of DD, and that this plan was executed for the 
eventual destruction of Lord Voldemort and the better good of the 
wizarding world, then I personally do not believe it to be morally 
wrong. In fact, I regard it as incredibly brave. "
<snip>

CH3ed:
I agree with brothergib. It is true that the exact scenario (as 
occured on the Tower) could not have been foreseen, but the general 
scenario could have been anticipated by the very thorough and 
farsighted DD. That Snape killed DD on DD's pre-arranged order is 
entirely possible and not morally wrong as the 'murder' would have 
been done with DD's consent(and on DD's request).

 It is possible that in that scenario DD pleaded because Snape did 
not want to go thru with that pre-arrange order (just like Harry 
didn't want to keep forcing the cave potion down DD's protesting 
throat). That might have been what Snape and DD were arguing about 
in the forest. DD could not just kill himself by jumping off the 
tower without jeopardizing Snape (unbreakable vow to complete 
Malfoy's mission), DD would have needed Snape to murder him to 
effectively protect Malfoy, Harry and Snape himself. 

The morality of 'euthanasia' seems to get a lot of us heated, but we 
should remember that JKR prioritizes good intentions and doing the 
right things above doing things "right" in the HP series. Whether we 
like or agree with that or not doesn't have any say on JKR's 
writing. Harry had to break rules a lot to do much of the good he 
did (sneaking out to see distressed Hagrid, sneaking out to save the 
philosopher's stone, etc.), but he still shows time and time again 
that he respects the rules (refused help from Bagman during the 
Triwizard Tournament, accepted his and Ron's punishment while asking 
McGonagal to not take points from the house in CoS, reminded Fudge 
that he warranted punishment for using magic in PoA, etc). 

I think if anything JKR is more mindful that rules and laws are set 
in the community's effort to protect its members. When a situation 
arises that the existing laws did not anticipate then it is right to 
break them if that is the only way to protect others. It doesn't 
seem right to judge the 'morality' of a novel (which is not trying 
to do anything more than simply telling a story) by a reader's own 
moral standard. 


CH3ed, whose unrighteousness is confirmed by his exasperated 
colleague this morning upon finding all but 2 of his classroom 
chaulks unusable. ;O)






From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Mon Nov 28 21:29:27 2005
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:29:27 -0000
Subject: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <dmfc9s+o5o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfsrn+576r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143618

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "krista7" <erikog at o...> wrote:

> When? Are they prominent players now? (This is akin, to me, to the fact 
> Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister--fabulous, but where are the other
>  major women political figures, in her cabinet or afterwards?) 

We don't know about female heads of departments. We do know there are
quite a lot of women members of the Wizengamot. 

> Again, where is she now? Where are major women leaders
> in the WW? 

As her portrait hangs in the Headmasters office I assume she is dead. 

> She's a headmistress at an all-girls' school; my assumption--just 
> assumption here--is that the whole staff is female.

p. 215 GOF, bloomsbury edition:
'My pupils,' said Madame Maxine waving one of her enormous hands.
'Harry, whose attention had been focussed completely on Madame Maxine,
now notice that about a dozen boys and girls - all, by the look of
them in their late teens - had emerged from the carriage and were now
standing behind Madame Maxine. 

> I did mention the nurse because healing, stereotypically, is an
acceptable
>  "woman's job"--comes from the nurturing female idea. I also pointed 
> out that the female Aurors (example: Tonks) aren't really giving a good 
> example for women (right now in the books).

What's wrong with Tonks? You can call Pomfrey stereotype, sure. 

> up a sec to clarify my points. First of all, I was attempting to point 
> out a.) the plethora of female teachers is consistent with the 
> view that teaching children is a "female" job and 2.) of the women 
> teaching/working at Hogwarts, most of them fit fairly stereotypical
>  images of "women's topics." Beyond the nurse, there's
>  Divination (seen as fluffy) and Herbology (a "nurturing" teaching
job). 

I'm sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. There are female teachers
and male teachers. Now you can rant that casting a female teacher is
stereotyping, but I assume you would have far more to say if there
were no female teachers. So this seems to me prejudice on your part,
because it will never be any good. Female teachers is stereotyping, no
female teachers is... another kind of discrimination. 

As for the subjects: Herbology does not strike me as particularly
womanish. Nor does potions strike me as particularly manly. The male
divination teachers is already pointed out. 

> >>Ron refers to Hermione jokingly as a "scarlet woman"
> >>for
> >>being seen with multiple men in Rita's reporting,
> >>and I think
> >>that is *very* telling about the conservative gender
> >>ethos in
> >>the Wizarding World. 

Nope. What Rita does here is painting Hermione as a girl who is
playing with a set of famous boys. Not nice, not nice at all. If it
were the other way around and Harry were a girl who was breaking her
hart over this Herman boy who was leading her on while also playing
with Victoria the famous seeker Herman would have gotten just as many
ugly letters. 

Irene: 
> >Nope, it only tells us that Ron is a MSP. ;-) I'll
> >grant you that.

Nope, it tells that Rita is a vicious bitch. Because Ron only told
what Rita was doing here, and he was angry about it. 

Gerry








From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 21:40:24 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:40:24 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
In-Reply-To: <011801c5f445$d6bbcd80$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmftg8+nm5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143619

> 
> Miles:
<snip> 
And to bring in the meta killer argument: Rowling stated in 
interviews, that characters who die in her books are really dead and 
do not return.
> 
> Miles
>

n_longbottom01

I think that the characters who have really died in the story will 
all stay dead (Harry's parents, for example), but we have already 
seen "dead" characters come back to life in the series.  Barty Crouch 
Jr. and Peter Petegrew were both supposedly dead, but it turned out 
that their deaths had been faked.

I like what Constance Vigilance pointed out about Dumbledore's 
conversation with Slughorn about why he wasn't fooled by Slughorn's 
attempt to fake his own death... "no dark mark."  The scene shows 
that if Dumbledore was going to fake a death, he would do it right.  
Dumbledore couldn't have staged everything that happened on the night 
of his death, but he could have had an arangement ahead of time with 
Snape.  Draco was being set up to fail as a punishment for his 
father; Draco had to appear to be sucessful in order to live.  Would 
Snape be breaking his unbreakable vow if he only pretended to kill 
Dumbledore?  Maybe Dumbledore's death was faked and the unbreakable 
vow will come back to bite Snape in the next book.

Dumbledore implies that he can hide Draco by faking his death, just 
before he is killed himself.  It sure seems like there must be 
someone who's death has been faked, but I am not sure who.  Here are 
some thoughts I've been having on the subject recently:

I know that you aren't supposed to be able to Apparate on Hogwarts 
grounds, but we didn't see Dumbledore fall the way to the ground... 
what if he Apparated to a safe spot just as he disappeard from sight 
over the edge of the tower.  Also, Barty Crouch, Jr. turned his 
father's dead body into a bone, could Dumbledore have done the 
reverse, and turned an object into something that appeared to be his 
own dead body?

Early on in The Order of the Phoenix, we see the students practicing 
vanishing spells.  Hermione progresses to vanishing kittens... is it 
possible to vanish a wizard, I wonder?  And it seems that the animal 
being vanished does not all vanish at once... since an incomplete 
vanishing spell can leave behind a rat's tail, it seems like the 
animal might vanish starting at one end and working its way to the 
other end.  Could a properly placed vanishing spell have made it 
appear that Sirius was falling through the curtain, when actually he 
was only vanishing?  I'm not sure were someone goes when they are 
vanished... but they aren't dead, hopefully (otherwise, Hermione is a 
kitten killer).

I'd like the faked death to be either Dumbledore or Sirius because I 
like them... I'm not sure how either works storywise, though.  My 
other candidate was R.A.B. is posing as Stubby Boardman... but if 
R.A.B. is still around, the locket Horcrux should be destroyed... 
but, because of what Dumbledore says on the tower, I think he is 
involved in any remaining faked deaths left in the series, and I 
can't work out how he could be involved in R.A.B.'s faked death.  
Otherwise, he should have known not to go into the cave, for one 
thing.  Plus he should have known about Voldemort's Horcrux's sooner 
for another.

n_longbottom01     






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Mon Nov 28 21:44:30 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:44:30 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
In-Reply-To: <dmfskr+8vfr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmftnu+gq9b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143620

h2so3f wrote:
<SNIP>
> I think if anything JKR is more mindful that rules and laws are 
> set in the community's effort to protect its members. When a 
> situation arises that the existing laws did not anticipate then it 
> is right to break them if that is the only way to protect others. 
> It doesn't seem right to judge the 'morality' of a novel (which is 
> not trying to do anything more than simply telling a story) by a 
> reader's own moral standard. 
 

Except that such judging is inevitable and unavoidable.  Whether 
that's good or bad of indifferent or all three, stories do 
have "morals."  Some of them are very conscious morals.  Some are very unconscious morals.  Some are sophisticated, some are basic.  But the morals are always there.

Around this time last year there was an interview with Clint Eastwood talking about "Million Dollar Baby."  That movie WAS about euthanasia, of course.  Eastwood actually said that he didn't think the movie was advocating anything, but just telling the story of some people.  He also said that he had played Dirty Harry for years and that didn't mean he advocated going around shooting people.

I laughed and laughed, but really felt he had missed the point.  
Stories exist in a moral universe, and your reaction to that moral 
universe is a crucial part of your reaction to the story.  Using the 
story's morals as a criterion for praise and condemnation is perfectly legitimate.  Stories do speak to us deeply, and that should be acknowledged.  But when they speak to us in a language we find abhorrent, then I don't think it's legitimate to meet that abhorrence with "well, it's just a story."

Lupinlore, who thinks that a Dumbledore/Snape murder plot or 
contingency would be cheesey, unbelievable, and induce a great deal 
more laughing, but not in a good way






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 28 22:01:45 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:01:45 -0000
Subject: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <dmf7dd+t5qi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfuo9+luji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143621

Geoff:
I feel I must take issue with Krista on a couple of points.

In message 143593, you wrote:
"Women at Hogwarts teach herbology, transfiguration, divination 
(mocked as *not* a hard science), and run the library; only Hooch as, 
basically, the gym teacher has ajob that isn't traditional."

My view would be that Transfiguration takes a very high profile in 
the Hogwart curriculum. 

'"You'll want to know which subjects you ought to take, I suppose?" 
she (Professor McGonagall) went on, talking a little louder than 
before.
"Yes," said Harry. "Defence Against the Dark Arts, I suppose?"
"Naturally," said Professor McGonagall crisply. "I would also advise-"
...

...Professor McGonagall... continued as though nothing had happened.

"I would also advise Transfiguration, because Aurors frquently need 
to Transfigure or Untransfigure in their work....

...Then you should do Charms, always useful, and Potions. Yes, 
Potter, Potions," she added with the merest flicker of a smile.'

(OOTP "Careers Advice" p.584 UK edition)

So it seems that there are four fairly important disciplines to 
follow for to be an Auror and it therefore seems rather cavalier to 
dismiss Transfiguration as a non-entity when McGonagall specifically 
names the subject more than once as being essential.

Then, in message 143598:

"First of all, I was attempting to point out a.) the plethora of 
female teachers is consistent with the view that teaching children is 
a "female" job"

Speaking as a teacher of 32 years' experience in a South-west London 
school teaching mainly teenagers, that remark verged on the 
ridiculous. I worked in a school where the balance of male and female 
staff was generally held aound the 50:50 mark. I worked for 22 of 
those years when I taught Maths under a female Head of Department (I 
was also a male HoD responsible for Computer Education for the last 
10 years).

I therefore feel that your point (a) is, in my view, indefensible.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 28 22:09:18 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:09:18 -0000
Subject: Just a pointer that Harry may survive?????
In-Reply-To: <dmf3df+ac8q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmfv6e+tdr0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143622

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" <brahadambal at i...> 
wrote:

scam:
> Didn't JKR say in some interview that the last chapter in the 
> seventh book is some kind of an epilogue and is going to discuss 
> about the life of the survivors?? And if the scar is mentioned 
> in this chapter (albiet as the last word..) it means Harry is 
> also mentioned ...and if it is a chapter of survivors and Harry 
> is in it -- that means Harry survives??? 
> Just hopeful (or rather wishful) thinking ......

Geoff:
One quote which has also often repeated over the years - as a 
possible Cheering Charm for those of us who belong to the "Harry Must 
Survive" movement - is:

'In years to come, Harry would never quite remember how he managed to 
get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to come 
bursting through the door at any moment.'

(PS "Through the Trapdoor" p.191 UK edition)







From k.coble at comcast.net  Mon Nov 28 21:01:38 2005
From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:01:38 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Dumbledore have a horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4eb9edd21659039acaff71b49bf4b0af@comcast.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143623


On Nov 28, 2005, at 7:37 AM, Maria Elmvang wrote:

> I have recently heard a very interesting theory, which I would like to 
> put to you. I don't know if I agree with it myself, but I'd never 
> heard it before, so I was interested in hearing what other people 
> thought of it.
>
>  Snape (DDM! of course ;) ) killed DD knowing that he (DD) had at some 
> point killed somebody and created a horcrux....
>
>  Is this at all conceivable?
>

No.

I mean, HBP goes on and on and on and on about what EEEEVIL magic this 
is.  The Hogwarts library doesn't carry a single book that talks about 
it in detail.   Slughorn was so ashamed of his memory about it that he 
fiddled with his recollection.   Throughout the entire series 
Dumbledore has been the very essence of manners, grace and civility.   
To pull a literary U-Turn and have him all ginned up with a horcrux 
would be a huge slap in the face to the readers AND to the character 
JKR has painstakenly crafted for SIX books.

To paraphrase Steven King:  "He didn't have a cockadoodie Horcrux!!!"

Katherine


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Mon Nov 28 22:36:41 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:36:41 +0100
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
References: <dmftg8+nm5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <023701c5f46c$34960760$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143624

n_longbottom01 wrote:
> I like what Constance Vigilance pointed out about Dumbledore's
> conversation with Slughorn about why he wasn't fooled by Slughorn's
> attempt to fake his own death... "no dark mark."  The scene shows
> that if Dumbledore was going to fake a death, he would do it right.

Miles:
Slughorn faked an attack, not a murder. As I pointed out, there was no faked
corpse. I do not see much parallels in both scenes. The scene in chapter 4
is used to characterize Slughorn - as a very skilled wizard and as being
very concerned about any unannounced visitors.
What strikes me - why should he fake an attack of Deatheaters in order to
deter an attack from Deatheaters? But maybe this is not important, just came
across it.

n_longbottom01 wrote:
> Would
> Snape be breaking his unbreakable vow if he only pretended to kill
> Dumbledore?  Maybe Dumbledore's death was faked and the unbreakable
> vow will come back to bite Snape in the next book.

Miles:
Snape swore to help Draco fulfill his task. The task was to kill Dumbledore.
To fake this, would surely be a break of the vow. If not this, what? If not
immediately, when?

n_longbottom01 wrote:
> Dumbledore implies that he can hide Draco by faking his death

Miles:
This is your interpretation. Dumbledore says, that he could hide Draco, not
more, not less. The implication of a faked death is a possible
interpretation, but only one among several other.

n_longbottom01 wrote:
> I know that you aren't supposed to be able to Apparate on Hogwarts
> grounds, but we didn't see Dumbledore fall the way to the ground...
> what if he Apparated to a safe spot just as he disappeard from sight
> over the edge of the tower.

Miles:
As you stated, you can not apparate on the grounds. Dumbledore could have
lifted this for his own purpose, but that would have meant he had planned
all this before, including the exact time and place for the showdown. To
lift this major protection of Hogwarts on the spot without anybody noticing
it - no way. Not really convincing, if Rowling would come around with
something like that. Possible, but this would be bad writing IMHO.

n_longbottom01 wrote:
(several things on vanishing)

Miles:
We know one person who survived the Avada Kedavra. This person is not Albus
Dumbledore. We do know that the freezing charm Dumbledore used on Harry is
person bound. Dumbledore couldn't have lifted it, but it was lifted - there
is only one other conclusion: that Dumbledore died.

Miles, who has the impression that the major reason for most people who
believe in Dumbledore being still alive is wishful thinking






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 22:43:00 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:43:00 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort the Happy Chappy
Message-ID: <dmg15k+r7ph@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143625

In the series so far there has been one point at which LV was 
described as happy. This was just around January of Harry's fifth 
year and Harry felt it strongly.

The implication given was that LV had succeeded in breaking out his 
loyal Death Eaters from Azkaban and this had made him ecstatic. In 
my view this does not stack up and I have a small theory as to why 
Voldemort was really in such a good mood.

First let me say that with what we have been led to believe of 
Voldemort, and coupled with his speech in the graveyard at the end 
of GoF, it seems that he would expect to easily break out his 
followers and would not be especially surprised when they rejoined 
him, let alone happy. He did, after all, state that the dementors 
were his natural allies and with that in mind he must have known 
that his loyal Death Eaters would get out.

My little thought regarding LV's happiness is that he was happy 
because Snape was to give Harry Occlumency lessons and he saw his 
opportunity to probe Snape's loyalty. It has been stated elsewhere 
on this list (can't point to it, sorry) that LV was the one who got 
into Snape's mind to see the cringing child etc.

It makes sense that LV would be pleased to get an opportunity to 
gauge Snape's true loyalty and that rather than the implied reason 
is why he was happy.

Thoughts?

Goddlefrood (who was disappointed by the latest cinematographic 
outing for the boy)






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 22:45:23 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:45:23 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
In-Reply-To: <dmftg8+nm5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg1a3+n9vb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143626


> 
> n_longbottom01 wrote:

>It sure seems like there must be 
> someone who's death has been faked, but I am not sure who. 

I think so too, but I don't think it would be Dumbledore: there's been
such a buildup to his readiness for death, the "next great adventure",
and to his age and so on.  Plus there's the Unbreakable Vow-- wouldn't
Snape have died, then, failing both to help Draco and to complete the
task for him?  And the real clincher, D-dore's portrait, which is a
pre-established way to have Dumbledore around in a shadowy form in the
grand tradition of Obi-Wan, and does the portait thing work if
someone's still alive? 

My canditate:  Emmeline Vance.  Because I can't figure out why else
her death was worked into Snape's 'Spinner's End' spin.  If Snape is
evil, and that was the OMG Snape's Evil!! reveal, why not have be
responsible for the death an Order member we KNOW, so it would have an
emotional impact?  In fact, why not have him actually KILL somebody,
as opposed to the dancy-aroundy "provided information" thing, so the
audience could gasp and go 'he killed Vance, the bastard!?!'?  Why, in
general, kill Vance off before individualizing her in any way beyond
that she's 'stately'?  It's pretty standard, if you're going to kill a
character in order to establish the Seriousness of the Situation, to
give them a personality first so the death means something.

With good!Snape there's also no reason to introduce the death of
Vance, unless it's a le Carre-ish dirtiness of spy work thing. But
that would require a load of irrelevant exposition after the fact. 
Irrelevant, that is, unless Vance herself can appear and provide us
not only with an explanation, but also with another female adult
character with a personality(yay!).

>  My 
> other candidate was R.A.B. is posing as Stubby Boardman...

That would be AWESOME!  But not very likely, for the reasons you
stated.. unless RAB disappeared HIMSELF, without Dumbledore's help. 
It would be lovely if Harry could have Sirius 'back' in some way, or
at least have a living connection to him.  It would sure help, as
well, to have one fewer piece of backstory in the last book that will
need a magical device to reveal it!

-- Sydney, who is nuts about the idea of the grand tragedy of the
Black family resolving itself in the wacky figure of Stubby Boardman,
middle-aged crooner






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 28 23:43:04 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:43:04 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
In-Reply-To: <023701c5f46c$34960760$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmg4m8+u6l7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143627

> n_longbottom01 wrote:
> > Dumbledore implies that he can hide Draco by faking his death
> 
> Miles:
> This is your interpretation. Dumbledore says, that he could hide 
Draco, not
> more, not less. The implication of a faked death is a possible
> interpretation, but only one among several other.


Alla:

Well, I believe that Dumbledore says a little bit more than that. 
Remember those words in American edition, which did not make it to 
British one? Unless of course you believe that JKR did not write 
them and it was an editor mistake. :-)


"He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right 
side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can 
possibly imagine." - HBP, p.592.

To me the implication of faked death is present here.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do NOT believe in Dumbledore's faked 
death theory, but not because of presence or absence such clues in 
the text, because we could find clues to support any theory we came 
up with, IMO and dragon blood and some other stuff certainly can be 
interpreted as clues.

I do NOT believe that JKR lies to us in interviews, I just don't and 
she went over and over saying that Dumbledore is dead, dead, very 
very dead, that she believes that it is more fun when hero has to do 
his job alone and she specifically said in interview with Emmerson 
and Mellissa that mentor always dies. So to me she cannot be any 
clearer in proclaiming to the world that Dumbledore is dead.

But at the same time why can't we do some wishful thinking? You 
know, while I just said all that stuff about interviews, I used to 
believe that Sirius is coming back and deep down I still do ( you 
know - no body and all that suff), even after Harry inherited 
Kreacher, which cannot be clearer proof that Sirius is dead. Is it 
wishful thinking? Of course it is, but it is part of the fun, so if 
people believe that Dumbledore is coming back and come up with great 
clues to support this theory - why not?

JMO,

Alla.
Alla






From erikog at one.net  Tue Nov 29 00:02:51 2005
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:02:51 -0000
Subject: Gender and WW
Message-ID: <dmg5rb+515m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143628


One final post on this thread for me: 

Geoff wrote:

"First of all, I was attempting to point out a.) the plethora of 
female teachers is consistent with the view that teaching children is 
a "female" job"

>>Speaking as a teacher of 32 years' experience in a South-west London 
>>school teaching mainly teenagers, that remark verged on the 
>>ridiculous. I worked in a school where the balance....

I've gone back and forth on how to answer this properly, but let me go
 for the simplest version: I don't believe for a second teaching children 
is a "female job" (I don't believe there is such a thing to begin with!). I 
was discussing stereotypes of women, and the evidence in the text
that is consistent with those stereotypes. I certainly did not mean to imply (ever) that 
stereotypes=facts. 

As for Transfiguration--I didn't mean to write off Transfiguration; I just don't 
know what to do with it in terms of evidence, one way or the other. No disrespect to 
MM intended, of course!

Last but not least: Thanks to those who confirmed my memory of Durmstrang and 
corrected me on Beauxbatons. I am grateful for your (collective) memory!

Krista






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 00:11:56 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:11:56 -0000
Subject: Snape, Neville & Trevor (was:Re: Snape-the Hero -- Snape-the Abuser)
In-Reply-To: <dmbrf0+amp1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg6cc+qcjb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143629

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>  
> > First and foremost, Snape *never* tried to poison Trevor.
> > <snip>  
> > *Neville* was the one preparing to poison his pet.

> >>Lupinlore: 
> On Snape's orders.  Sadistic, cruel, and totally reprehensible.  I 
> simply do not understand how you defend this evil (and yes, I do 
> literally mean evil) behavior on Snape's part.  Please enlighten  
> me, because I simply can see no way to interpret this except for   
> utter sadism and cruelty, and an attempt to poison a boy's beloved 
> pet.

> Sigh.  I must confess to being completely puzzled.  It is obvious 
> is that scene that Snape is being reprehensible and sadistically 
> cruel.  I simply do not understand how anyone, especially someone 
> who so detests seeing the weak targeted, can defend him.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Okay, the house is empty of visiting family, the turkey carcass is 
gently bubbling away in the stockpot, and I finally have time to 
tackle this subject.  I know I will not change minds here.  But you 
did ask, so I'll take the opportunity to clarify my point of view.

First and foremost, this is *not*, IMO, an example of the powerful 
picking on the weak.  Snape is not behaving sadistically, taking 
pleasure in Neville's pain.  He is behaving like a teacher.  A 
strict, demanding, and definitely scary teacher, but a teacher none 
the less. 

He didn't set Neville up for failure by giving erroneous 
instructions (the instructions were clearly stated), or difficult 
working conditions (Neville is working in the same environment as 
everyone else in his class). Yet Neville is screwing up his potion 
beyond anyone else in the class.  The narrator tells us that this is 
not new.

"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." (PoA scholastic hardback p.125)

So Neville is already terrified of Snape.  And his potions are 
terrible.  I suspect that Neville (who does worse in this class than 
Goyle or Crabbe appear to, which is fairly telling of how badly he's 
doing) is on his way to flunking out of Potions, and quite possibly 
Hogwarts.  (The four head of house subjects strike me as core 
curriculum.)

To my mind, this leaves Snape three different options:

1) Leave Neville alone.  Let the boy either flunk out of Hogwarts or 
at the very least Potions.

2) Very gently and tenderly give Neville a nice fatherly talk that 
helps him get over his self-doubt and fear and either appoint him a 
tutor or give him special help after class when Snape has free-time. 

3) Grab him by the scruff of the neck and drag him through Potions, 
letting Neville know that failure will not be allowed.

The first option is the easiest, obviously.  It's also the cruelest 
and most irresponsible, IMO.  The second option is wonderful, but 
totally unrealistic.  We see Snape attempt a fatherly talk with 
Draco in HBP, a boy he seems to genuinely care for and a beloved 
Slytherin, and he fails miserably.  Snape just doesn't *do* gentle 
and tender -- not verbally, anyway.  So Snape goes with option 
number three.  He pushes Neville, and pushes Neville, and Neville 
passes Potions and is back for the next year.

Interestingly enough, I don't recall that Neville ever has the same 
level of trouble in Potions again.  It's never going to be his best 
subject, but he'd probably be able to make a basic potion without 
blowing up his kitchen or poisoning his intended recipient.

And there's the final rub, IMO.  These potions are made to be 
taken.  These aren't just cool chemistry experiments, these are 
practical creations.  In a sewing class, students often have to wear 
their work.  In cooking classes students have to eat what they've 
made.  And Snape has his students take their own potions from time 
to time, IIRC.  I believe he also threatened to test their antidote 
making prowess by feeding them the relevant poison.

The Trevor incident is often seen as an example of breath-taking 
cruelty.  But look at how Harry and Ron and Seamus respond to 
Neville's crisis:  they ignore it.  Seamus has some gossip on Sirius 
Black and Harry and Ron are all ears (ibid p.126).  Trevor's fate is 
a total non-issue with them.  Probably because, for all of his fire-
breathing, Snape doesn't routinely kill or maim people (or their 
familiars) in his classroom.

What Snape *does* do is put high expectations on his students and 
then force them to meet them, even the ones that struggle.  It's 
part of what I like about the man, and I suspect, part of what you 
hate.  Which is why, as I said, I know I've not changed your mind.

> >>Lupinlore:
> I must say, it also speaks to Dumbledore's idiotic policies that 
> Snape was not put firmly and publically in his place after this 
> deplorable episode.

Betsy Hp:
You're very big on public humiliation as a form of punishment.  
Dumbledore is not.  At least, I've not seen him publically humiliate 
anyone, though I know he's had words with a few folks from time to 
time.  Plus, what is there to punish?  Neville has a bigger break 
down after Fake!Moody gets through with him (now *there* is a 
perfect example of sadistic behavior -- brilliantly conveyed in the 
film I'll illegally add <g>).  Trevor is not harmed.  Neville makes 
the potion successfully.  No one in the class room is stunned or 
shocked.  Why would Dumbledore even hear about the incident?  And 
what would he be told if he did?  "Snape fed Neville's potion 
assignment to his pet, while closely supervising the pet's 
reactions."  To my mind (and yes, I know you'll disagree) there's 
nothing there to punish.

Betsy Hp






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 00:16:12 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:16:12 -0000
Subject: Just a pointer that Harry may survive?????
In-Reply-To: <dmf3df+ac8q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg6kc+ksf7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143630

CH3ed:
Hi! I like the quote from 'Through the Trapdoor (PS/SS)' ('In years to 
come, Harry would never quite remember ...') as possible hint of 
Harry's survival better than that he and/or his scar may be mentioned 
in the final chapter of the series. Sirius is mentioned a lot in HBP 
posthumously. I'd bet that Harry survives nonetheless. It just makes 
better sense than Voldy being triumphant at the end of the series. 
After all JKR talks like she got the whole story from meeting Harry 
himself (in her imagination) on the train from King's Cross one day. 
The survival of Ron and Hermione and other good guys are harder to 
predict, though. And I hope Lupin and Tonks and the Weasley twins 
survive.... after all their U No Poo antics. ;O)

CH3ed would do almost anything (except eating prunes) to be able to 
visit the Weasleys' joke shop. 






From ophelia_de_la_nuit at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 29 00:20:08 2005
From: ophelia_de_la_nuit at hotmail.com (Kelley Frank)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:20:08 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore, Grindewald and horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <1132770702.2915.1988.m31@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F749715AEC45739BCC6BF7EC4B0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143631

I have been thinking about horcruxes a lot since reading HBP, though my 
primary subject of concern was Snape for a long while. Now that I have begun 
to reevaluate the overarching plot, Im a little curious about a few things 
and hope some of you have some good opinions about them.

First, was it ever mentioned whether Dumbledore killed Grindewald, or just 
defeated him? If Harry is expected to defeat Voldemort, and few people here 
will argue that there will be little alternative to killing him, would it 
not be likely that Dumbledore, in a similar situation was forced to murder a 
Dark Lord as well?

If Grindewald was killed, the matter deepens. Because we are told that 
killing fractures the soul, it would clarify some of the moral questions 
roaming the list lately concerning Harrys insistence to take as many DEs 
down as he can in HBP (sorry, I dont have the source material readily 
available).

Would Dumbledore have taken the time to create a horcrux of his own when 
Grindewald was defeated?


ophelia_de_la_nuit





From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Nov 29 00:21:32 2005
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:21:32 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape?Who are the people in Snape's memory?
In-Reply-To: <dmfn5u+ce9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg6uc+m9u5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143632

> Christina:
> 
> We've seen jealousy as a powerful motivator before, but James 
wouldn't
> have had the chance to show off his Quidditch talents right away. 
> Harry was the youngest Quidditch player in a long time, so there's 
no
> way James could have played right at the start of school. 
<SNIP>


Quick_silver:
But the snippets of Snape's memory that Harry saw describes the 
people as "boy and girl" meaning that they were probably still quite 
young and we know the first year Gryffindor and Slytherin have 
flying lessons together. 

Christina:
> That's an interesting thought- I just love speculation on those 
weird
> little snippets that we get from Snape's head.  However, if the boy
> was James, I think that Harry would have recognized him easily (he
> looks just like his father and picks him out of the crowd 
in "Snape's
> Worst Memory" easily).  Also, Snape's memory features a girl 
laughing
> at the boy on the broomstick; I find it much easier to believe 
that a
> girl was laughing at the skinny, unattractive weird kid than the
> popular athlete.

Quick_silver:
Yet Harry doesn't recognize Snape in the snippets he saw either. The 
reader is meant to assume we're seeing Snape and uses descriptions 
like "dark haired" and "hooked nose" to describe the "Snape 
apparent" in the scenes (Harry states that the cowering boy was 
Snape but he doesn't mention the other two memories snippets).  
That's what first alerted me to this memory
the boy is described 
as "scrawny "(at least I've never connected scrawny with Snape
I 
connect it with Harry) which has never been used to describe Snape 
but has been used to describe Harry who's apparently 95% James's 
clone in appearance. And James probably wouldn't have been the 
popular athlete yet either
it that scene occurred in Snape's first 
year (again based on the fact that "boy" is used) then said boy 
could have been at school for only a few weeks. I can certainly 
picture Lily laughing at James even if his broom was being hexed.

It should also be noted we are told hexing brooms is powerful dark 
magic (we're told this in the very first book by Hagrid who 
discounts Malfoy hexing Harry's broom because the charge is so 
serious and the magic advanced). I'd find James doing the hexing 
unlikely for what exact reason
we're constantly told he hated the 
Dark Arts (of course Sirius could be lying). What's more we have no 
hint that James was super advanced when he entered Hogwarts yet 
every character in that memory snippet is described as "boy or girl" 
which implies first maybe second years (if they're even in 
Hogwarts). Yet Sirius makes the claim that Snape knew more curses 
the half the 7th years
has it been considered that maybe Sirius had 
empirical evidence to back up that claim? 

Quick_Silver (who believes that we know every person that we saw in 
those memory snippets) 









From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 29 01:04:15 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:04:15 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD? (WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/)
In-Reply-To: <dmfskr+8vfr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg9ef+rpm0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143633

Ch3ed:
> The morality of 'euthanasia' seems to get a lot of us heated, but
> we should remember that JKR prioritizes good intentions and doing
> the right things above doing things "right" in the HP series.
> Whether we like or agree with that or not doesn't have any say on
> JKR's writing. Harry had to break rules a lot to do much of the
> good he did (sneaking out to see distressed Hagrid, sneaking out
> to save the philosopher's stone, etc.), but he still shows time 
> and time again that he respects the rules (refused help from
> Bagman during the Triwizard Tournament, accepted his and Ron's
> punishment while asking McGonagal to not take points from the
> house in CoS, reminded Fudge that he warranted punishment for
> using magic in PoA, etc).


Jen: Wait, you mean prioritizes right things over "easy" things, 
right? ;) 

JKR did introduce a character into canon who appeared to be a person 
willing to sacrifice himself if he felt it was for the good of the 
community. Someone who believed rules are made by humans, are 
fallible and sometimes must be broken. Who asked so much of his 
friends that at times people probably preferred to be his enemy. And 
he happened to be on the tower. 

So I think it's safe to say Dumbledore would allow himself to be 
killed IF there was some reason that would be for the greater good 
and IF the person he had asked to do it was capable of carrying out 
the deed. 

But what Dumbledore may have been OK with and what society, even WW 
society is OK with, are two very different things. If Dumbledore did 
ask Snape either previously or with his pleading to kill him, he did 
make a choice to doom Snape. And the moment the words 'Avada 
Kedavra' passed Snape's lips, he doomed himself. He wasn't a minor 
feeling obligated to pour an unknown potion down his headmaster's 
mouth in an abandoned cave, he was a consenting adult casting an 
Unforgiveable in front of witnesses. Unless there are shadowy deeds 
left untold behind the scenes, he made a choice and it was the 
moment he took the Unbreakable Vow, not the moment on the tower.

JKR seems like a tough cookie, and her characters definitely make 
hard choices. She's the one who said she got where she is by hard 
work and luck. In a way, even though it hurts me to say this, I 
think both Dumbledore and Snape are culpable and she planned for it 
to be that way. (Hard for me to knock Dumbledore off my self-
inflicted pedastel is all, sniff). She planned for Harry to come out 
on top in the end and that he would not be helped across the finish 
line by the greatest wizard in the world, but by the least of his 
brothers and sisters--the disenfranchised, the enslaved, the half-
giant and the werewolf, the blood traitor and the Muggleborn. And 
yes, the former DE. 

The only way to get to that ending was to make it clear how human 
Dumbledore was, not in his trust of Snape, but in how much he asked 
and expected of others who couldn't deliver. Maybe the greatest 
lessons he taught Harry were from his own mistakes: Confide in your 
friends. Know other's limits. And biggest of all: Sometimes you 
don't know if the choice you make will doom the person in front of 
you or doom many lives in the future, but you still have to make it--
there's no wiggling out. It's not the ending I envisioned when I 
picked up HBP, but somehow the fairy tale went awry and it doesn't 
look or act like a fairy tale anymore, where the day is always saved 
and Dumbledore explains everything in the end.

It's a thought, anyway, right? Sigh. 


Ch3ed 
> I think if anything JKR is more mindful that rules and laws are set
> in the community's effort to protect its members. When a situation
> arises that the existing laws did not anticipate then it is right
> to break them if that is the only way to protect others. It doesn't
> seem right to judge the 'morality' of a novel (which is not trying
> to do anything more than simply telling a story) by a reader's own
> moral standard. 

Jen: I imagine JKR was astounded when the story in her head became 
not only a sensation, but a controversial sensation at that. 
Especially since in her own words she didn't intend to write a 
morality tale, didn't sit down thinking 'what will I teach today?' 
But once the phenomenon happened, once her story became part of the 
public domain, she did put herself into a position of being judged 
not only for the values in the story, but her own moral values as 
well. Human beings ascribe order to chaos, it's our blessing and 
curse.


Jen






From radasgat at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 00:33:55 2005
From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:33:55 -0000
Subject: HBP: newbie to the discussion, random thoughts
In-Reply-To: <dmfap4+dps8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg7lj+rgli@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143634

Juli <jlnbtr at y...> wrote:
> Welcome Ragabast!

Thanks!

> > 1. It is no coincidence that Dumbledore's familiar is a phoenix; 
> > a bird that rises from its own ashes after a period of looking 
> > hideous. <snip> 
> 
> Juli: It's not a popular theory, but I agree with you. I believe 
> (or at least I want to believe) that Dumbledore will live again. 
> He's just too much phoenix-like for him to just die. 

My husband points out the many similarities between the phoenix 
and Dumbledore.  I do hope he is not gone.  If he is... who will 
run the school?  There is no other wizard powerful enough to take 
the position.. EXCEPT LV himself.  Wonder if he's going to make 
an attempt.

Why do you suppose LV wants into Hogwarts anyway?  What's there 
that he feels he needs to have?  Sure, the castle is powerful but 
it always seemed to me that the power stemmed from the headmaster, 
Dumbledore.

> > 2.  Could it be possible that Snape's mother and Tom Riddle 
> > not only knew each other at school (50 years ago), but were 
> > intimate and had a child <snip>.  That child was Snape. 
> 
> Juli: That's a good theory, but Jo wrote on her site that 
> Voldemort doesn't have a son...

Hmmm.. well, it was a theory that seemed to fit.  What if Snape
believes he is LV's child?  

Radasgat










From radasgat at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 00:39:56 2005
From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:39:56 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore Dying
In-Reply-To: <dmflq5+61jp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmg80s+d1jf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143635

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dizzydz33" <dizzydz33 at y...> wrote:
> I know this has probably been posted a lot but I just finished 
> the book and feel really bad because Professor Dumbledore has 
> died. This probably sounds ridiculous but I can't stop thinking 
> about why J.K. would kill him off and it won't stop bothering me. 


Yes, it is upsetting isn't it?  

I think we're all trying to make sense of it.  My husband's theory 
is that he will be back.  He says it's no accident that Dumbledore's
familiar is a phoenix, who looks horrible before he dies, dies, then 
is reborn from the ashes.  As you read, Dumbledore had a funeral 
pyre, not a burial.  AND there was the hint of a phoenix rising from 
the pyre.  Hmmm.... could it be?

The real question is, who's going to run the school?  Will the school
be open during year 7? I don't think there is another wizard powerful
enough to take over.. except for LV.

Radasgat









From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 01:30:58 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:30:58 -0000
Subject: Ghosts?
In-Reply-To: <20051128183734.82786.qmail@web35915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmgb0i+j78e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143636

nymphandoracallel wrote: 
"CH3ed wrote: (unless your fear of death causes you to become a 
ghost).

Is this true? Is that how you become a ghost? "


CH3ed:
Well, in "The Second War Begins" chapter of OotP Nearly Headless 
Nick told Harry that :
  "Wizards can leave an imprint of themselves upon the earth, to 
walk palely where their living selves once trod, but very few 
wizards choose that path."
and 
"I was afraid of death, I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder 
whether I oughtn't have..... Well, that is neither here nor there... 
In fact, I am neither here nor there... I know nothing of the 
secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life 
instead. I believe learned wizards study the matter in the 
Department of Mysteries --"

  So I'm relying on Nick's words (tho perhaps the Unspeakables at 
the DoM would know more Nick does). Also in HBP, Snape defines 
ghosts as imprints of departed soul when he was covering ghosts and 
inferi in class (I don't have the exact quote at the moment. A 
friend is borrowing my copy of HBP). So the soul is gone but the 
consciousness remains behind as an imprint, perhaps? It would not be 
the same as horcrux making where a soul piece is kept separated from 
the body to anchor the person to this earth. 

I don't think this choice to remain behind as a ghost is made before 
one is killed but afterward. Perhaps right after you die there is a 
short grace period where your realize that you are moving behind the 
veil, and if you are too afraid to go to that unknown world you 
become a ghost?


NymphandoraCallel wrote:
"Can ghosts perform magic? What sort of powers do they have, if any, 
and have there been any mentions of dark wizards who have become 
ghosts and are now able to forever be in LV's army??"


CH3ed: I don't think ghost can do magic as they have neither soul 
nor body. Poltergeists like Peeves seem to be different, tho. I 
think JKR wrote on her site somewhere that Peeves the Poltergeist is 
the spirit of chaos who was never alive to begin with and that's why 
he cannot be expelled from Hogwarts. LV uses inferi (bewitched 
corpses), but they are like zombies under the control of a dark 
wizard. They haven't got a soul or consciousness or anything IMO. I 
don't know what exactly "echos" like those that came out of LV's 
wand during "Priori Incantatem" in GoF are.

 :O) CH3ed is heading off to bed after his 3rd post of the day. 
G'night folks! 






From whiggrrl at erols.com  Tue Nov 29 00:51:52 2005
From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:51:52 -0500
Subject: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <1133208733.2819.41159.m9@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1133208733.2819.41159.m9@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <438BA628.1000406@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143637

Irene:
> > There were female ministers of magic.

Krista:
> When? Are they prominent players now? (This is akin, to 
> me, to the fact Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister--
> fabulous, but where are the other major women political 
> figures, in her cabinet or afterwards?) 


Don't forget Griselda Marchbanks, head of the Wizarding 
Examinations Authority, an elder of the Wizengamot, and 
probably Dumbledore's earliest patron.

--Julia





From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Tue Nov 29 02:12:57 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:12:57 -0000
Subject: Gender in the WW
In-Reply-To: <20051128155042.53109.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmgdf9+m8ao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143638

> 
> Irene:
> 
> It's not her fault that headmasters tend to stick in
> their job for 50 years and more. There was a female
> headmaster in 19th century (she is mentioned in OoTP),
> and she also was the manager of St. Mungo before
> coming to Hogwarts. That's a powerful job in the
> wizarding society.
> And Madame Maxime is a contemporary Headmistress.
> 
I don't think I'd care to tangle with Minerva McGonagall. And I'm with 
you that Transformation is a serious Wizarding discipline. (She's also 
an animage, and a darned good one.)

La Gatta (who is a bit that way herself =^..^=)






From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov 29 02:07:39 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:07:39 -0500
Subject: Does Dumbledore have a horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <438BB7EB.9090508@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143639

Maria Elmvang wrote:
> Snape (DDM! of course ;) ) killed DD knowing that he (DD) had at some
> point killed somebody and created a horcrux....

Bart:
All things considered, no. Somebody will probably produce the quote, but 
DD made it VERY clear to Harry that:

A) There are things worse than death
B) Trying to cheat death is wrong.

	Bart






From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov 29 02:15:00 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:15:00 -0500
Subject: Ghosts?
In-Reply-To: <20051128183734.82786.qmail@web35915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20051128183734.82786.qmail@web35915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <438BB9A4.5050003@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143640

Rebecca Johnson wrote:
> Binns was said to have died in his sleep one day and then just got up
> went to go and teach leaving his body behind, could Binns have been
> scared of death while sleeping, or would it be an overall living fear
> of the unkown after death takes over?

Bart:
The implication that I always thought was that Binns was so close to a 
ghost while he was alive that the transition was minor, at most.

	Bart







From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Tue Nov 29 03:12:08 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 04:12:08 +0100
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
References: <dmg4m8+u6l7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02c101c5f492$b15ef4c0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143641


>> Miles:
>> This is your interpretation. Dumbledore says, that he could hide
>> Draco, not
>> more, not less. The implication of a faked death is a possible
>> interpretation, but only one among several other.

Alla:
<snip>
> "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right
> side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can
> possibly imagine." - HBP, p.592.
>
> To me the implication of faked death is present here.

Miles:
You got me ;). I only read the British edition and forgot about this piece
of information. No, I do not think that the editor put it there, he just
failed to cut it out.
But this is interesting enough. The only reason for Rowling to cut this
sentence is, that she would give too much information for our guesswork with
it. So, there will be someone we all believe dead still alive, right?
But Dumbledore? He is not threatened by LV, so there is no need for him to
hide that way.

Maybe Regulus Alphard Black? Some open questions concerning this suggestion,
but I won't mess up this thread.

Miles






From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Tue Nov 29 02:56:41 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:56:41 +0100
Subject: Did Snape kill DD - ethical debate
References: <dmftnu+gq9b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02ac01c5f490$86feca40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143642

> h2so3f wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> It doesn't seem right to judge the 'morality' of a novel (which is
>> not trying to do anything more than simply telling a story) by a
>> reader's own moral standard.

>lupinlore wrote:

> Except that such judging is inevitable and unavoidable.  Whether
> that's good or bad of indifferent or all three, stories do
> have "morals."  Some of them are very conscious morals.  Some are
> very unconscious morals.  Some are sophisticated, some are basic.
> But the morals are always there.

Miles:
I totally agree that the morals of a novel *do* matter. But not in the way
you display it.

Maybe my summary of your remarks will be inaccurately, so correct it if
necessary:
You state that a good novel should have heroes that act in a morally way,
maybe not in every single action, but in general. And your idea is, that
characters which act in an unmoral way are to be "punished" in the course of
the story. Right?

In my opinion the moral factor in valuing a story or novel or film is
different. We will have moral, or better: ethical questions in most stories
told. The question is: are they treated in an adequate way? The characters
should think about right or wrong, they should consider consequences for
themselves or others. And if they do not, we shall see that they can get in
trouble with that. Because this is real life, isn't it? For me, good stories
deal with interesting people. And interesting people think about right or
wrong. And when they do, I can judge about their questions for myself. If
Dumbledore makes a decision I do not appreciate, and I can understand why he
did it, then the Harry Potter series can still be valuable from a moral
point of view.

The other point I disagree with is, that the outcome has to be "just". Why
should it be? Life is not just as well, I'm not trying to find the ideal
world in the books I read. We all know, that bad guys quite often are
successful, and the good guys are the losers. Why not in stories, why not in
Harry Potter? Umbridge is not punished for her actions. I really dislike
this - but it's ok. We know that the ministrial system is corrupt, so why
should it be just in this case?

Heroes who make wrong ethical decisions (read: decisions I do not approve),
and unfair results of actions are ok in stories in general, and they are in
stories for children/teenagers as well. There is no problem if adolescents
*disagree* with their heroes - and I'm quite sure they will do. We should
not overestimate the influence of books on children. They do have their own
opinion.

I do not speak of indoctrinating books, books that hide their ethical values
and try to transport them through the backdoor. Harry Potter is surely not
indoctrinating - the people in the book speak about good and bad, they have
different opinions, and Harry considers his actions.

Miles






From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov 29 03:01:30 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:01:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
In-Reply-To: <dmfskr+8vfr@eGroups.com>
References: <dmfskr+8vfr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438BC48A.1000103@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143643

h2so3f wrote:
> The morality of 'euthanasia' seems to get a lot of us heated, but we 
> should remember that JKR prioritizes good intentions and doing the 
> right things above doing things "right" in the HP series. 

Bart:
It is not unheard of in war for a soldier to kill another soldier on the 
same side. For example, if the alternative is capture, and the soldier 
who will otherwise be captured has information which, in the hands of 
the other side, will cause many deaths on the side of the soldiers.

Remember, there's a war going on right now.

	Bart







From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 04:40:08 2005
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 04:40:08 -0000
Subject: Snape's childhood WAS: Re: Snape:  Hero AND Abuser
In-Reply-To: <dmfl4u+nh69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmgm38+2ubr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143644

 
> Carol responds:
> I agree with Ceridwen that Merope Gaunt and Eileen Prince aren't
> really comparable figures in the respects she cited. Merope 
believed
> that she was a Squib and didn't dare defend herself against her 
wizard
> father. 

I disagree that Merope thought she was a squib.  She does not say 
so, her father calls her that.  I don't even believe that he thinks 
she's a squib.  It sounds to me more of a hyberbolic taunt.  If he 
REALLY thought she was a squib there would be no point in telling 
her to use her wand to pick up the pot of whatever she was cooking 
because she would have to pick it up like any other muggle.  No, the 
fact that she succesfully bewitches Tom Riddle Sr. when she not 
around the abuse of her father suggests that his childish mocking 
inhibits her magical abilities.

> How, then, can we account for a woman who must be Eileen cowering 
as a
> hook-nosed man shouts at her and her small son (Severus at perhaps 
age
> three to five) cries in a corner? From the little we know of her,
> Eileen doesn't seem like the type to be afraid of a mere Muggle. I
> think that after her marriage to the Muggle Tobias failed (perhaps
> little Sevvie performed some accidental magic?) or Tobias died, she
> returned to her parents' home and the man who is shouting at her,
> terrifying both her and her child, is her father--who would have
> psychological power over her as well as magical power that he's not
> afraid to use. I can see Eileen, even as an adult, fearing her 
father
> (as Merope did). I can't see her fearing a Muggle.

I still in the camp who believe that man shouting is Snape's 
father.  It is possible to read too much into the one 
word "cowering."  Since we see no signs of physical abuse in this 
scene, I don't believe that she is cowering because she is afraid, 
per se, of the man who is yelling.  Different people react different 
ways to arguments.  Eilleen may just be the type of person who hates 
to be yelled at.  

Presumably she loved her muggle husband and hated to have rows with 
him (especially in front of her young son). Just because she has the 
power to hex him, it doesn't mean she will.  If every family -- 
wizard, muggle, or mixed parentage -- resorted to the most violent 
means at their disposal every time they have a dispute, there would 
be a good deal more domestic violence.  Sure, Eilleen could use a 
much more benign spell -- perhaps a silencing charm -- but if she 
loved him, she wouldn't hex her muggle husband.

-Nathaniel






From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 04:55:11 2005
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 04:55:11 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
Message-ID: <dmgmvf+qesk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143645

With all this talk about Snape and his "deplorable" attitude towards 
Neville's toad, I wonder why more isn't made of Hagrid's complete and 
utter imbecility with regard to animals.

Hagrid to my mind is the dangerous teacher at Hogwarts.  Just because 
he's too dumb to know better is not really an excuse.  He is the last 
person who should be teaching "care of magical creatures".

He cares for his pets more than he does people, or at least his reason 
is obscured by his affection for them, and several times students are 
nearly killed because of it.  Harry and Ron barely escape from the 
killer spiders, and Hagrid actually encouraged them to go into the 
forbidden forest in that case.

I'd much rather have Snape hovering over my child than Hagrid, at 
least if I wanted my kid back at the end of term. It's no wonder in 
HPB the trio avoid his class, which is by that point optional.       









From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 05:34:07 2005
From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:34:07 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmgmvf+qesk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmgp8f+kibu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143646

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" <leslie41 at y...> wrote:
>
> With all this talk about Snape and his "deplorable" attitude towards 
> Neville's toad, I wonder why more isn't made of Hagrid's complete and 
> utter imbecility with regard to animals.

> Hagrid to my mind is the dangerous teacher at Hogwarts.  Just because 
> he's too dumb to know better is not really an excuse.  He is the last 
> person who should be teaching "care of magical creatures".
> 
> He cares for his pets more than he does people, or at least his reason 
> is obscured by his affection for them, and several times students are 
> nearly killed because of it.  

Now me: I agree, from the animals' point of view as much as the
humans'. This is pragmatic more than theoretical - Snape is puerile
and sadistic, while Hagrid is only foolish and self-indulgent. That
makes him less sinister, in my book - I doubt he'd try to murder
anyone's pet for the fun of it. 

That said, Hagrid is doing animals no kindness by breeding agressive
creatures for which he can't care, then locking them in crates to keep
them from killing each other (or students). And then there are the
acromantulae - a wizard-created, non-natural species native only to
Borneo, imported into the Forest because Hagrid felt like it. (I can
forgive his getting Aragog as a naive thirteen-year-old, but Mosag?
Really.) Can anyone suppose that the native magical creatures who need
the habitat are adapted to that? What do you suppose the acromantulae
eat? And that's just the start of it. What did he think he was doing,
getting a dragon and trying to raise it away from its kind, in an
unsuitable environment? 

The smaller shame is that he's a horrid teacher - Care of Magical
Creatures, as opposed to Abuse of Monsters, could be a wonderful
class. Actually, it was starting on the right foot until the incident
with Malfoy and Buckbeak - and I'll add that while it was foolish of
Hagrid to start his first lesson, with beginner students, with
something like Hippogryffs, that was entirely Malfoy's fault. Plenty
of kids would probably be interested in learning about phoenixes and
runespoors and, at more advanced levels, thestrals and dragons and
such, and the care of sick unicorns and pet nifflers are important to
learn.

So in a nutshell, Hagrid: not actually malevolent and deliberately
evil. However, the only animal I'd like to be around him is Fang.

Animal love,
hekatesheadband

Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono.






From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Tue Nov 29 05:37:58 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:37:58 -0000
Subject: Sirius' words about Snape WAS: What is poetic justice?
In-Reply-To: <dme2m5+r2hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmgpfm+pnsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143647

> 
> Quick_Silver (who thinks it's odd Snape is all for fair play
doesn't 
> seem very Slytherin of him)
>
As I've said before, Snape doesn't seem very Slytherin to me, period. 

Let's put it this way: According to the Pirate Monkeys personality 
quiz ( http://piratemonkeysinc.com/quiz.htm ), based on the Myers-
Briggs/Kiersey personality typing system, Snape and I share a 
personality type, and are both rather extreme representatives of that 
type (I tested between 8 and 10 in all four categories in the official 
Kiersey personality test). That type is INTJ, one of the most 
intellectual and least social and politically ambitious of the types. 
On an earlier thread, I wondered what poor brainy, nerdy, antisocial, 
half-blood Snape was doing in Slytherin, with all those slippery, 
unprincipled, pure-blood Brahmins, and whether his continued 
association with Slytherin, first as a student and later as Head of 
House, was responsible for his distinctly unjolly outlook on life.

There is a similar Sorting-Hat personality test (I can't find it now, 
but you can get at it through the Harry Potter Lexicon), and it sorted 
me into Ravenclaw so fast it wasn't even breathing hard.

Which leads me to wonder it the Sorting Hat sometimes sorts students 
not into the house where they belong, but into the house it's told to 
sort them into. As for example, if Dumbledore knew he was going to 
need a distinctly un-Slytherin set of eyes and ears in Slytherin House 
in the not too remote future, might he not arrange to have Snape 
sorted there?

'S a thought...

La Gatta 






From lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com  Tue Nov 29 03:25:53 2005
From: lodonne4 at twcny.rr.com (Lorie J. O'Donnell)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:25:53 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Dumbledore have a horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17785fc30511280537j190488e6k8c339ad86aa3dd62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ba68ea6a00fb30ddc26c788255c77150@twcny.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143648

On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Maria Elmvang wrote:
> Snape (DDM! of course ;) ) killed DD knowing that he (DD) 
> had at some point killed somebody and created a horcrux....
>
>  Is this at all conceivable?


I just don't see AD participating in the ultimate of Dark Magic.  
He is (or was) the ultimate opponent of the dark side, and I just 
can't believe he would have done that.  He's the one that kept 
telling Harry that one thing Voldemort never understood is that 
there are worse things than death.

Lorie





From pcpal67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 03:27:16 2005
From: pcpal67 at yahoo.com (pcpal67)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:27:16 -0000
Subject: What's a horcrux?
Message-ID: <dmghqk+14e0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143649

Forgive my ignorance, as I am a dedicated muggle.  But I just 
can't keep track of every new detail of the wizarding world.  
I like how the novels are written.  That we as readers learn 
as Harry learns.  The fact that Harry once lived as a muggle 
makes the books very appealing, but as the books get more 
sophisticated so does the tangled web of knowledge one needs 
to follow in order to remember and discuss the stories.

"pcpal67"






From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Nov 29 04:59:13 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:59:13 -0500
Subject: Not all killing is murder.
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAYCyNNgh3NkKksCIGaAiHPQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143650

Ophelia writes:

If Grindewald was killed, the matter deepens. Because we are 
told that killing fractures the soul, it would clarify some 
of the moral questions roaming the list lately concerning 
Harry's insistence to take as many DE's down as he can in HBP 
(sorry, I don't have the source material readily available).


I respond:

IIRC, the fracturing of the soul is MURDER, not killing.  Not 
every killing is murder.  My legal dictionary defines murder 
as 'the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of a human 
being.' Killing in self-defense or defense of a third party is 
not murder.  Killing in a fair fight is not murder.  Killing 
in a sudden and uncontrollable fit of rage is not murder. 
Killing by accident is not murder.  That is why the law 
recognizes other terms for killing than murder---manslaughter 
(voluntary or involuntary), homicide (justifiable, negligent, 
depraved indifference)---and different degrees of murder--
capital murder, first degree murder, second degree murder.

Bruce Wilson









From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Nov 29 05:12:28 2005
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:12:28 -0000
Subject: HP essays on Decent Films
In-Reply-To: <002801c5f2d6$91f542a0$ea002b45@b9g2u1>
Message-ID: <dmgnvs+abdk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143651

Bruce Wilson <bawilson at c...> wrote:
>
>  http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/search?search==Search&title==harry+potter
> 
> These deal mostly with the films, but they do refer also to the 
> books.  Although I don't agree with everything that the author 
> says, I certainly think he makes some good points.


I have only recently read the entire series. In reading that last 
essay on this site, while it is quite expansive in technical 
points, they never mention the core debate between Dumbledore and 
Voldemort, the core belief of Dumbledore that love is the most 
powerful "magic" of all; that it is the protection of all, and 
that even in death it saves. I mean, after all,  I haven't read 
much on the criticism of HP by various groups, but do they all 
miss this central core theme that seems to be the whole point of 
the genesis of Harry himself? 

"kchuplis"





From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Nov 29 05:26:28 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:26:28 -0500
Subject: Fathers; Tobias & Eileen
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAgFq1WTjgcU+9j3s2sLT1pwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143652

Lyra:

"How many fathers do we actually see in the books? Vernon, who 
does an abysmal job with Dudley; Arthur, who is probably the 
best of the lot; Lucius, raising a baby DE; Tom Riddle Sr. who 
abandons his child before it's born; James, who dies defending 
his son before really getting much chance to be a father, 
workaholic Barty Sr. who sends his son to prison then sneaks 
him out. Some of the fathers we see are just brief snippets, or 
less: Catonic Frank Longbottom; the senior Potter who took in 
Sirius Black as a second son, shocked-to-learn-he-married-a-witch 
Mr. Finnegan; and probably shouting Tobias Snape. If you accept 
that "fathering" is a sort of theme in the stories, it seems 
likely the shouting man would be the father of Snape, a major 
character, rather than the father of his mother, a minor 
prescence at best."


What about Mr. Diggory, Cedric's father?  

And as for Tobias and Eileen, just because a couple yell and 
scream at one another sometimes doesn't mean they don't love 
each other.  My parents fought a lot, but I know they loved 
each other--although I admit that as a child I didn't 
understand that.  

Bruce Wilson









From danushasivakumar at gmail.com  Tue Nov 29 05:52:26 2005
From: danushasivakumar at gmail.com (kit_1_99)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:52:26 -0000
Subject: What did Dumbledore see in the Mirror of Erised?
Message-ID: <dmgqaq+3aoj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143653

This question has been nibbling at me since I first read the 
book - anyone got any theories?

"kit_1_99" 







From ms-tamany at rcn.com  Tue Nov 29 07:11:45 2005
From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:11:45 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/
In-Reply-To: <438BC48A.1000103@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <4iore0$59cad9@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143654

 


   _____  

From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:02 PM
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/


h2so3f wrote:
> The morality of 'euthanasia' seems to get a lot of us heated, but we 
> should remember that JKR prioritizes good intentions and doing the 
> right things above doing things "right" in the HP series. 

Bart:
It is not unheard of in war for a soldier to kill another soldier on the 
same side. For example, if the alternative is capture, and the soldier 
who will otherwise be captured has information which, in the hands of 
the other side, will cause many deaths on the side of the soldiers.

Remember, there's a war going on right now.

      Bart


[Now Tammy says:] When I was a young girl, my father, who was in Army
Intelligence, was constantly accompanied while at work by an armed guard who
had orders to SHOOT MY FATHER DEAD in the case of an enemy attack on their
base, to prevent his information from falling into enemy hands.  This was
during a war-time, and an enemy infiltration of the base (in Germany) was
not inconceivable.  The armed guard, whoever he was, would NOT have been
charged with any crime for killing my father in this very specific
situation, but would probably have been decorated for saving countless lives
by preventing highly sensitive intelligence falling to the enemy.  In part
because of this very fact, I've always been able to accept the idea of
sacrifice for the greater good.  In the case of the Astronomy Tower, I
believe that, no matter what side Snape may be on, his actions *did* in fact
preserve the greater good for the school -- it was far, far better for one
person to die, even if that one person had to be Dumbledore, than for
Dumbledore, Snape, Draco, Harry, and who knows how many other students and
faculty to die because Snape (dying either by the UV or by one of the DEs
killing him for being a traitor to LV) was not able to rein in the DEs and
get them out of the castle and off the grounds.
 
My father understood this about that time he had a sure death hovering
around with him all the time, and accepted its possibility, and kept working
in that very sensitive, dangerous job because what he did served the greater
good for our soldiers and our nation.  If the situation had ever come up (an
enemy infiltration of the base, requiring my father's death), I'm sure my
family would have been forgiving of the guard who actually pulled the
trigger, and proud of our father's sacrifice, though it would have been a
horrible price for us to have to pay for the lives of uncounted strangers
we'd never meet.  How difficult is it to believe, then, that Dumbledore,
too, understood this concept and accepted that his own death, in certain
situations, might be the price his school must pay for the lives of its
students?
 
I can not deny that Snape killed Dumbledore on the Tower.  He may have been
acting on pre-planned orders ("If it comes down to it, Severus, you'll HAVE
to kill me -- if I'm captured, it's the end of us all") or on his own
recognizance on the spur of the moment ("Oh crap, it's all going to the
dogs, and there's no way to save myself or Dumbledore from these Death
Eaters, but if *I* kill him before they can, then maybe they'll follow me
out of the castle without killing anyone else"), but the fact is that he was
able to get the DEs out of the castle and off Hogwarts grounds without any
students being seriously harmed.
 
Hogwarts and Harry have paid a terrible price with Dumbledore's loss, and
Snape did physically kill Dumbledore, but in actuality, the Death Eaters and
Lord Voldemort are directly responsible for Dumbledore's death, just as an
enemy action would have been directly responsible for my father's death, had
his guard been required to kill him.  I cannot hate Snape for what he did on
the Tower, though I do pity him for the burden he now has to carry
(Dumbledore's death).
 
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 11/27/2005
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 07:27:24 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:27:24 -0000
Subject: What's a horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dmghqk+14e0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmgvss+8tcs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143655

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pcpal67" <pcpal67 at y...> wrote:
>
> Forgive my ignorance, as I am a dedicated muggle.  But I just 
> can't keep track of every new detail of the wizarding world.  
> ...edited... as the books get more sophisticated so does the 
> tangled web of knowledge one needs to follow in order to remember
> and discuss the stories.
> 
> "pcpal67"
>

bboyminn:

So, is there a question in there somewhere?

If your question is 'What is a horcrux?', I can probably help you out.

First JKRowling didn't invent the concept of Horcrux, it exists in
eastern European myth and legend. The basic concept is that a person
hides his heart (I assume this mean 'heart' in the abstract sense) or
his soul inside some material object. Then that object containing a
person's soul is in turn hidden in a safe secure place. 

Since the soul and the body are in separate location, the soul's
connection to the earth can not be severed by the death of the body.
In some instances or versions, with the soul hidden in a material
object, the body can't die. 

JKR has taken this old legend and, like many of the old myths and
legends, reworked it into her own unique version. In JKR's world,
killing tears the soul, and that torn piece of soul can then be stored
in a material object like a locket or cup. As long as that soul piece
is contained in or tied to the material object, it remains earthbound,
and that means the the person who owns the soul piece can't be killed.

When Voldemort's curse rebounded from Harry and struck himself, he was
ripped from his body and his body died, but Voldemort was protected by
having pieces of his soul stored away from his body. That meant that
even though Voldemort's body was lost/killed, he true SELF remained
alive. 

For Harry to kill Voldemort, he must release the hidden soul pieces
from the objects that contain them. Only when Voldemort is down to the
one last piece of soul that is now contained in his material body, can
he be killed. 

Hope that's clear enough, and I hope that helps. If you had some other
 question or point, please ask it more directly and you will surely
get it answered.

The concept of Horcruxes was introduced into the story in the latest
volume 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'.

For the record, someone here in this group suggested that Horcruxes
would come into the story, although at the time we didn't have the
term 'Horcrux', before 'Half-Blood Prince' was released. At the time I
thought it was an absurd idea, but now that the story bears this
person out, I am not too proud to admit I was wrong. If the person
would like to take a bow, I'm sure everyone would happily applaud.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 08:37:01 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:37:01 -0000
Subject: What did Dumbledore see in the Mirror of Erised?
In-Reply-To: <dmgqaq+3aoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmh3vd+emua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143656

CH3ed:
I would guess that, like Harry, Dumbledore saw himself surrounded by 
the people he cared for... including the dead Order of the Phoenix 
members. IMO a person usually has to have experienced a similar 
tragedy himself or at least seen one up close to be able to empathize 
with someone of Harry's background.

 Or DD could have really told the truth and saw some nice warm 
socks. :O)

CH3ed 






From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Tue Nov 29 08:43:47 2005
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:43:47 -0000
Subject: ghosts
Message-ID: <dmh4c3+4273@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143657

Bart and Rebecca consider Professor Binns's death; I've always thought
that he was probably the kind of raving egomaniac often found in
staffrooms, who genuinely believed that he was irreplaceable and
therefore took steps to ensure that he never had to be replaced.

Or perhaps he just really, really liked the sight of a room full of
snoozing children and couldn't bear to give it up.

Or perhaps he reasoned that the more history a History professor had
experienced, the better.

Deborah, approving of hyperdutifulness in principle but not from him







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 08:44:50 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:44:50 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD? (WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/)
In-Reply-To: <dmg9ef+rpm0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmh4e2+a6q3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143658

Miles  wrote:
"In my opinion the moral factor in valuing a story or novel or film 
is different. We will have moral, or better: ethical questions in 
most stories told. The question is: are they treated in an adequate 
way? The characters should think about right or wrong, they should 
consider consequences for themselves or others. And if they do not, 
we shall see that they can get in trouble with that. Because this is 
real life, isn't it? For me, good stories deal with interesting 
people. And interesting people think about right or wrong. And when 
they do, I can judge about their questions for myself. If Dumbledore 
makes a decision I do not appreciate, and I can understand why he
did it, then the Harry Potter series can still be valuable from a 
moral point of view."<snip>


CH3ed:
I agree with what you say. I didn't mean that the moral of a story 
doesn't matter. What I was trying to get at is that I wouldn't 
condemn a book and its writer just because I don't like the way the 
story or its hero go. I love Ibsen's 'Peer Gynt' and Peer isn't a 
nice guy by any measure... neither is Pechorin in Lermontov's 'A 
Hero of Our Time.' 

I concur it is far more important that the story makes you consider 
issues and gain new perspectives from them. If a writer has done that
(and JKR certainly has) then she did a fine job regardless of 
whether the story ends the way a reader likes or not (like in the 
controversial movie Million Dollar Baby). I also agree with Jen that 
JKR must be astounded at how her books are taken so seriously.








From aenea at verizon.net  Tue Nov 29 07:29:42 2005
From: aenea at verizon.net (woman22980)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:29:42 -0000
Subject: What happens to a person's pensive after they're gone?
Message-ID: <dmh016+i7k2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143659

Hey all!  I was wondering if anyone could point me to some theories as 
to what happens to a person's pensieve after their dead?  What happens 
to Dumbledore's pensieve?  Will Harry inherit it?  Perhaps with DD's 
pensieve he can finally learn why DD trusted Snape so unequivocally.  
He could learn tons more than that, depending on what was put in 
there, but that's something I think Snape isn't going to be really 
forthcoming with Harry about (in between blasts from wands and all.)

Also, now that Snape's run out of the castle, does anyone think he 
left behind _his_ pensieve with anything in it?  I'd love to see more 
of Snape's memories, maybe he did fall in love with Lily, and that's 
why LV gave her a chance to live - to reward Snape for his great 
service of delivering the prophecy. (ancillary to the question about 
Snape's pensieve, but that's the second mystery I'm dying to know more 
about.)

It's probably been discussed before - I think evertying has been 
discussed on this list!  but that's the thoughts that are keeping me 
up late this night.  Does anyone know if JKR has mentioned something 
about DD's pensieve?

Jenny








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 29 06:09:40 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:09:40 -0000
Subject: Did Snape kill DD - ethical debate
In-Reply-To: <02ac01c5f490$86feca40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmgrb4+kt8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143660

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at m...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Miles:
> I totally agree that the morals of a novel *do* matter. But not in 
the way
> you display it.
> 
> Maybe my summary of your remarks will be inaccurately, so correct 
it if
> necessary:
> You state that a good novel should have heroes that act in a 
morally way,
> maybe not in every single action, but in general. And your idea is, 
that
> characters which act in an unmoral way are to be "punished" in the 
course of
> the story. Right?
> 


Sure.  But that isn't an objective standard.  There ARE no objective 
standards in literature.  Literature, like morality itself I'm 
afraid, is a fundamentally political process where you take your side 
and you fight it out.

So, yes, if JKR is a good writer then Snape and Umbridge will be 
specifically and severely punished.  That is a political position, 
which is to say it's a moral and literary one.  

<SNIP>

> 
> The other point I disagree with is, that the outcome has to 
be "just". Why
> should it be? Life is not just as well, I'm not trying to find the 
ideal
> world in the books I read. We all know, that bad guys quite often 
are
> successful, and the good guys are the losers. Why not in stories, 
why not in
> Harry Potter? Umbridge is not punished for her actions. I really 
dislike
> this - but it's ok. We know that the ministrial system is corrupt, 
so why
> should it be just in this case?

No, I don't think it's okay, because it would be extraordinarily poor 
writing -- and has been up to this point.  Of course, we aren't 
finished with Umbridge, yet, so we'll see.


Lupinlore









From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 29 09:10:46 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:10:46 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
Message-ID: <dmh5um+mhir@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143661

All right, let's have another feeble attempt to break away from Snape 
for a while.  On the subject of Dolores Umbridge, JKR said in her 
three-part interview with TLC:

JKR: [Laughter] Awww. Well, Umbridge, she's a pretty evil character.

MA: She's still out and about in the world?

JKR: She's still at the Ministry.

MA: Are we going to see more of her? [Jo nods.] You say that with an 
evil nod.

JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another 
little bit more before I finish.



Now, what do you think JKR meant by that?  It's always dangerous to 
read much into colloquialisms like "little bit" -- recall what people 
were reading into her comment about how Harry would have a "little 
romance" in HBP.  The definite thing is that we will be seeing her 
again (and I suspect the mentions and glimpses of her in HBP were 
JKR's way of keeping the character somewhat in view in preparation 
for whatever is going to happen in the seventh book).

Anyway, any ideas?

Lupinlore






From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Tue Nov 29 10:26:25 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:26:25 -0000
Subject: Ghosts?
In-Reply-To: <438BB9A4.5050003@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dmhach+2leg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143662

> 
> Bart:
> The implication that I always thought was that Binns was so close to 
a 
> ghost while he was alive that the transition was minor, at most.
> 
> 	Bart
>
Binns reminds me of one old dear of a professor I had who could teach 
Greek lyric poetry in his sleep...which was a good thing, because he 
often did.

La Gatta








From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 10:45:36 2005
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:45:36 -0000
Subject: What happens to a person's pensive after they're gone?
In-Reply-To: <dmh016+i7k2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhbgg+oj4a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143663

Jenny wrote: 
"What happens to Dumbledore's pensieve? Will Harry inherit it?"

CH3ed: 
Hey Jenny. :O) I don't know if DD had left the pensieve for Harry 
(is it DD's property or Hogwarts'?) Perhaps, as some of our members 
had suggested, book 7 would open with the disclosure of DD's will, 
and then we'd know.


Jenny wrote:
" Perhaps with DD's pensieve he can finally learn why DD trusted 
Snape so unequivocally. He could learn tons more than that, 
depending on what was put in there, but that's something I think 
Snape isn't going to be really forthcoming with Harry about (in 
between blasts from wands and all.)"


CH3ed:
It would depend on whether there is any memory stored in the 
pensieve, indeed! I was wondering in another thread if taking a 
memory out to look at in the pensieve is like printing a hard copy 
of a file from the computer (so the original file would still be in 
your head and the strand is just a copy) or if the strand is the 
actual memory original materialized (so you've better take care of 
that strand while it is out of your head or you might lose it for 
good)? If it is the latter then perhaps the best place to keep a 
memory is in one's own head or in a vial hidden somewhere not as 
obvious as in a pensieve. 


Jenny wrote:
"Also, now that Snape's run out of the castle, does anyone think he 
left behind _his_ pensieve with anything in it? I'd love to see more 
of Snape's memories, ..." <snip>

CH3ed:
I think Snape was using DD's pensieve when he was teaching Harry 
occlumency (Harry observed in OotP that it had the same cracks as 
the one he saw in DD's office). But I, too, would be interested in 
seeing more of Snape's memories (but perhaps not of his potion 
researches). :O)


CH3ed doesn't think JKR has said anything much about 
pensieves....better go to Quick Quote Quill to check. :O)






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 10:59:25 2005
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:59:25 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <dmh5um+mhir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhcad+klb2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143664

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:

> JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another 
> little bit more before I finish.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what do you think JKR meant by that?  It's always dangerous to 
> read much into colloquialisms like "little bit" -- recall what people 
> were reading into her comment about how Harry would have a "little 
> romance" in HBP.  The definite thing is that we will be seeing her 
> again (and I suspect the mentions and glimpses of her in HBP were 
> JKR's way of keeping the character somewhat in view in preparation 
> for whatever is going to happen in the seventh book).

Amiable Dorsai:
Th Ministry in general is one of the great hanging threads in the
whole series.  Harry's view of it has gotten progressively worse in
each book, starting with Hagrid's genial contempt for Fudge in book
one and ending with Harry's dismissal of Scrimgeour in book 6.  I
think Jo is setting up a big shakeup for book 7.  

I think Umbridge, as the personification of everything bad about the
Ministry, is set to take a big fall in Book 7.  I hope we get to see
it "on camera".  One of the minor disappointments for me in HBP was
that we didn't get to see Fudge get the boot.

Amiable Dorsai








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Nov 29 11:06:11 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:06:11 -0000
Subject: Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
Message-ID: <dmhcn3+oqcj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143665

Firstly, I would like to present several comments made by DD during HBP.

'Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that 
Voldemort had split his soul'  p467 British edition

'Well, as you now know, I have made it my business for many years to 
discover as much as I can about Voldemort's past life' p471

'I have been looking for a very long time' p474

OK, so canon supports the theory that DD has spent considerable time 
researching Voldemort, and at least 4 years looking for Horcruxes.

And what has the most powerful wizard of the age managed in all that 
time.
The destruction of 1 Horcrux
The identification of 3 others, but has no idea where they are
No real idea about the final Horcrux at all.

Now consider the following conversation between Harry & DD in HBP.

'Sir, am I allowed to tell Ron & Hermione everything you've told me?'
DD considered him for a moment, then said 'Yes, I think Mr Weasley & 
Miss Granger have proved themselves trustworthy. But Harry, I am going 
to ask you to ask them not to repeat any of this to anybody else...'

If Snape is fighting for the dark side, this basically means that HRH 
have to identify and destroy the four remaining Horcruxes. Bearing in 
mind the evidence from HBP that DD only survived the first Horcrux due 
to his own 'prodigous skill' and Snape's timely intervention, as well 
as the difficulty in extricating the (fake) Horcrux from the cave, it 
is IMO completely illogical to believe that HRH are capable of this 
task. If we also consider Harry's past history, he doesn't tend to deal 
with the challenges put before him at any great speed e.g. the egg from 
GOF, or Slughorn's memory from HBP.It also seems very unlikely from the 
point of view of JKR's narrative structure. Is it possible for HRH to 
find and destroy the locket, find and destroy the cup, identify, find 
and destroy the unknown Horcrux, and finish off Nagini, as well as kill 
Voldemort - all within the space of one book - NO!!! I would go as far 
as to suggest that this would be impossible.

And what if Harry ignores DD'S request and enlists the Order to help 
him with this task. Are we to believe that in the space of a few months 
the Order can achieve what DD failed to do in several years?

As far as I can tell, with the time remaining, there is only one way to 
find the location of the cup, and identify and locate the unknown 
Horcrux. SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET VOLDEMORT TO DIVULGE THIS 
INFORMATION!

The only scenario that makes sense to me, is that Snape will procure 
this information. 
Canon supports the theory that Snape will now be implicitly trusted by 
Voldemort i.e. DD's statement that VOldemort's greatest weakness is his 
belief that nothing is worse than death and Draco's announcement that 
we would be revered above all others if he completed his task (killed 
DD).
If Snape were to return to Voldemort and claim that DD (and therefore 
the Order) knew/knows about his Horcruxes, then Voldemort would 
consider his soul pieces to be at risk. Canon again states that 
Voldemort had not trusted his death eaters with the knowledge of his 
Horcruxes. However, he is now presented with a death eater who (1)knows 
about his Horcruxes and (2) is completely trustworthy (or so he thinks).
Perhaps Voldemort would then entrust Snape with the task of protecting 
his Horcruxes!!

Finally, we are presented with considerable evidence over the course of 
six books that noone knows more about the Dark Arts than Snape - and 
therefore he is surely the best person to deal with the curses that may 
have been placed upon them.

If all this proves to be true, then Snape's role is to destroy the 
remaining Horcruxes, and therefore is directly against Voldemort.

Brothergib






From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Tue Nov 29 11:50:02 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:50:02 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
In-Reply-To: <dmhcn3+oqcj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051129115002.62534.qmail@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143666


--- esmith222002 <c.john at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

> If Snape is fighting for the dark side, this
> basically means that HRH 
> have to identify and destroy the four remaining
> Horcruxes. Bearing in 
> mind the evidence from HBP that DD only survived the
> first Horcrux due 
> to his own 'prodigous skill' and Snape's timely
> intervention, as well 
> as the difficulty in extricating the (fake) Horcrux
> from the cave, it 
> is IMO completely illogical to believe that HRH are
> capable of this 
> task. If we also consider Harry's past history, he
> doesn't tend to deal 
> with the challenges put before him at any great
> speed e.g. the egg from 
> GOF, or Slughorn's memory from HBP.It also seems
> very unlikely from the 
> point of view of JKR's narrative structure. Is it
> possible for HRH to 
> find and destroy the locket, find and destroy the
> cup, identify, find 
> and destroy the unknown Horcrux, and finish off
> Nagini, as well as kill 
> Voldemort - all within the space of one book - NO!!!

I happen to agree with you, and IMHO it would make a
believable narrative only if Harry gets some
unexpected help from Snape.

However, there is another opinion (not pointing any
finger here, but you know who you are): that this will
devalue Harry as the hero of the books and make JKR a
very bad writer indeed. :-)

I'm still not sure where she will go. I can easily see
JKR writing about Harry, Ron and Hermione doing it all
without any help, through "sheer dumb luck". Whether
she can pull it off in a way that won't be completely
ridiculous, remains to be seen.
(Oh, and would not it devalue Dumbledore as a wise and
powerful wizard? To be bested by three half-trained
teenagers?)

Irene


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com



From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Nov 29 12:09:03 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:09:03 -0000
Subject: Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
In-Reply-To: <20051129115002.62534.qmail@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmhgcv+ck5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143667


> 
> I'm still not sure where she will go. I can easily see
> JKR writing about Harry, Ron and Hermione doing it all
> without any help, through "sheer dumb luck". Whether
> she can pull it off in a way that won't be completely
> ridiculous, remains to be seen.
> (Oh, and would not it devalue Dumbledore as a wise and
> powerful wizard? To be bested by three half-trained
> teenagers?)
> 
> Irene
> 

I would go as far as to say that this is not possible within the 
scope of 1 book. There is simply too much to do, and the book would 
end up about twice the size of OOTP. Harry would have to visit 
Godric's Hollow, attend a wedding, find & destroy the locket, find & 
destroy the cup, identify, find & destroy the unknown Horcrux, 
destroy Nagini, resolve the whole Wormtail/Snape issue, fight 
Voldemort.

JKR IS a good writer and I don't think she would leave so much to do 
in the final book. I'm betting that Snape will reveal to 
Harry/Voldemort that he has taken care of 2-3 of the Horcruxes - BUT 
we won't ever see this taking place within the book.

Brothergib






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 29 12:52:07 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:52:07 -0000
Subject: Not all killing is murder.
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAYCyNNgh3NkKksCIGaAiHPQEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dmhitn+maij@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143668

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
<bawilson at c...> wrote:
>
> Ophelia writes:

> IIRC, the fracturing of the soul is MURDER, not killing.  Not 
> every killing is murder.  My legal dictionary defines murder 
> as 'the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of a human 
> being.' Killing in self-defense or defense of a third party is 
> not murder.  Killing in a fair fight is not murder.  Killing 
> in a sudden and uncontrollable fit of rage is not murder. 
> Killing by accident is not murder.  That is why the law 
> recognizes other terms for killing than murder---manslaughter 
> (voluntary or involuntary), homicide (justifiable, negligent, 
> depraved indifference)---and different degrees of murder--
> capital murder, first degree murder, second degree murder.
> 
I've made mention of this before, but it's worth repeating - the 
Biblical commandment, most familiar in its KJV mistranslation as "Thou 
shalt not kill" should be rendered, "You shall not murder." Elsewhere 
in the Torah (i.e. the first five Biblical books), killing is allowed, 
even commanded, on certain  occasions: those who are convicted of a 
capital crime are to be stoned to death,  enemies are to be slain on 
the battlefield, sacrificial animals are to be offered up during all 
religious ceremonies.

The text of HBP is a little ambiguous: when Slughorn first describes 
how a Horcrux is made (in Chap. 23)

"How do you split your soul?"

"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul 
is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of 
violation, it is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder. 
Killing rips the soul apart?"

So Slughorn *first* says murder, then goes on to say *killing* - I take 
this to mean specifically only those acts of "killing" which fall under 
the definition of "murder," but others may argue differently. 

    - CMC












From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Tue Nov 29 12:56:05 2005
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:56:05 -0000
Subject: ghosts
In-Reply-To: <dmh4c3+4273@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhj55+1qn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143669

To me it is easily imaginable that a person so stuck on routinge as
Binns is, is too terrified of change to pass the veil. 

Gerry






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 29 13:07:25 2005
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:07:25 -0000
Subject: What happens to a person's pensive after they're gone?
In-Reply-To: <dmh016+i7k2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhjqd+npev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143670

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "woman22980" <aenea at v...> wrote:
>
> Hey all!  I was wondering if anyone could point me to some theories 
as 
> to what happens to a person's pensieve after their dead?  What 
happens 
> to Dumbledore's pensieve?  Will Harry inherit it?   
> Also, now that Snape's run out of the castle, does anyone think he 
> left behind _his_ pensieve with anything in it?  

Actually, Snape is not shown with his *own* Pensieve - when Harry 
enters Snape's dungeon to begin his first Occlumency lesson, Harry 
notices that Snape has *Dumbledore's* Pensieve:

"The shadowy room was lined with shelves bearing hundreds of glass jars 
in which slimy bits of animals and plants were suspended in variously 
coloured potions. In one corner stood the cupboard full of ingredients 
that Snape had once accused Harry - not without reason - of robbing. 
Harry's attention was drawn towards the desk, however, where a shallow 
stone basin engraved with runes and symbols lay in a pool of 
candlelight. Harry recognised it at once - it was Dumbledore's 
Pensieve. Wondering what on earth it was doing there, he jumped when 
Snape's cold voice came out of the shadows." (Chap. 24)

Like you, I hope Harry will get access to the Pensieve again - I 
believe that he needs to witness first-hand the night at Godric's 
Hollow when his parents were killed to find out how to destroy 
Voldemort. And we already know that Harry has those memories inside of 
him - the dementors were able to draw them out in PoA.

    - CMC (wondering about an LWW/HP crossover: "The Pevensies 
approached the Pensieve pensively...."






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 13:47:54 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:47:54 -0000
Subject: Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
In-Reply-To: <20051129115002.62534.qmail@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmhm6a+94dq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143671

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin 
<irene_mikhlin at b...> wrote:

> I'm still not sure where she will go. I can easily see JKR writing 
> about Harry, Ron and Hermione doing it all without any help, 
> through "sheer dumb luck". Whether she can pull it off in a way 
> that won't be completely ridiculous, remains to be seen.

Well, she's openly hinted at more than 'sheer dumb luck':

MA: Here at the end you sort of get the feeling that we know what 
Harry's setting out to do, but can this really be the entire 
throughline of the rest of the story?

JKR: It's not all of it. Obviously it's not all of it, but still, 
that is the way to kill Voldemort. That's not to say it won't be 
extremely an torturous and winding journey, but that's what he's got 
to do. Harry now knows ? well he believe he knows ? what he's facing. 
Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I don't 
want to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, `There are four 
out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for 
Voldemort.' So that's where he is, and that's what he's got to do.

ES: It's a tall order.

JKR: It's a huge order. But Dumbledore has given him some pretty 
valuable clues and Harry, also, in the course of previous six books 
has amassed more knowledge than he realizes. That's all I am going to 
say.

------------

Harry may not always be the absolute fastest at doing what needs to 
be done, but he does have exceptionally valuable intuition, a kind of 
edge that the more methodical Hermione lacks.  He won't be doing 
everything alone, but there's enough interesting possibilities with 
the quest given that I'm not sure she'd want to pull in the deus ex 
machina 'Oh, look, Snape already killed a few of them'.

> (Oh, and would not it devalue Dumbledore as a wise and powerful 
> wizard? To be bested by three half-trained teenagers?)

Guessing about JKR's portrayal of Dumbledore is a tricky thing, these 
days.  Given that Harry is her hero, he came into her mind first, and 
she's built everything around him, I'd say it's an inherent structure 
of the narrative that he surpasses Dumbledore in some field, by the 
end of the story.  He may well see things from a different 
perspective not accessible to the older man, and thus arrive at the 
solution needed.

But I wouldn't even put it in terms of competition like that, as 
Harry is clearly going to be going off of the knowledge Dumbledore 
gave him.  Presumably Dumbledore would have helped even more on this 
quest, knowing how hard it was going to be, had he not taken an 
authorially-designatedly green jet of light in the chest and ended up 
dead. :)

-Nora takes how much an author likes characters as a useful heuristic 
for guessing, but it has its limits






From azkushwaha at kanbay.com  Tue Nov 29 11:33:30 2005
From: azkushwaha at kanbay.com (abhikush)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:33:30 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
Message-ID: <dmheaa+upt2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143672

Hi,

I have been a reader of the group for a very long time now and this is 
the first time I am ever writing. I am from Pune, India.

I was reading chapter summary from the HP-Lexicon and one thing I 
found striking was that there is only one holiday (religious) that is 
ever highlighted in the series and that is Christmas. I was wondering 
if there were any such holidays mentioned in the series so far. It 
seems a reasonable to assume that Christmas is celebrated in wizarding 
world with as much enthusiasm as in muggle world. I was also wondering 
if there are other religions in the wizard world besides Christianity. 
I would like to know the views of others in the group.

I tried to do a search on the topic but could not find anything so I 
have opened a new thread. Let me know if this has ever been discussed.

"Abhikush"









From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov 29 13:58:45 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:58:45 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's a horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <dmghqk+14e0@eGroups.com>
References: <dmghqk+14e0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438C5E95.3020809@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143673

pcpal67 wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance, as I am a dedicated muggle.  But I just 
> can't keep track of every new detail of the wizarding world.  
> I like how the novels are written.  That we as readers learn 
> as Harry learns.  The fact that Harry once lived as a muggle 
> makes the books very appealing, but as the books get more 
> sophisticated so does the tangled web of knowledge one needs 
> to follow in order to remember and discuss the stories.

Bart:
But not to enjoy them.

There was a wonderful carrtoon in the New Yorker a few years (decades!) 
  back. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are sitting in their living room. 
Holmes is looking at a gift-wrapped package with his magnifying glass. 
The caption is, "Oh, Holmes! Just open it up and be surprised like 
everybody else!"

JKR likes to plant hints and clues within the stories. In some cases, 
the clues are outside the stories (for example, her tendency to plant 
specific clues in specific numbered chapters). However, you don't need 
to know any of these to open it up and be surprised like everybody else.

On the other hand, for this group...

Bart









From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov 29 13:53:31 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:53:31 -0500
Subject: Can Slytherins be ALL bad?
In-Reply-To: <dmgpfm+pnsj@eGroups.com>
References: <dmgpfm+pnsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438C5D5B.9010007@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143674

lagattalucianese wrote:
> Which leads me to wonder it the Sorting Hat sometimes sorts students 
> not into the house where they belong, but into the house it's told to 
> sort them into. As for example, if Dumbledore knew he was going to 
> need a distinctly un-Slytherin set of eyes and ears in Slytherin House 
> in the not too remote future, might he not arrange to have Snape 
> sorted there?

Bart:
This brings up a problem with the lack of a 3rd dimension in much of 
JKR's writing. In OOP, I was rather disappointed when no Slytherins 
joined the DA. I had figured that was a good point for JKR to add a 
dimension to the House of Slytherin.

A few years back, I put in a game proposal for a Harry Potter based game 
(it didn't make it, but the design is still a solid one, so I will not 
give the details here, because I may still have some use for it). 
However, I will say it was Quidditch based, and each player chose a 
house, and each house had strengths and weaknesses. Gryffindor was 
strong in offensive moves, Hufflepuff was stronger in defensive moves, 
Ravenclaw was superior in teamwork, and Slytherin's strength was 
deceptive plays.

The point is that in real life, 25% of the population are NOT a bunch of 
worthless jerks, and there are definitely positive aspects of the 
Slytherin personality; JKR just seems to be reluctant to show them.

Consider Aurors. It just seems to me that, out of all the houses, 
Slytherin should put out the most Aurors. After all, the job requires a 
highly skilled witch or wizard who is willing, for the most part, to 
stick in the background. If you look at Phineas Nigellus (who is the the 
best example of a good Slytherin we have), he seems like just the type. 
Do what needs to be done, but don't stand out; let others take the 
credit. Know your advantages and limitations. Think before you strike. 
Don't do anything without knowing in advance what results you are trying 
to achieve. These seem to be Slytherin characteristics, as well.

	Bart






From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 29 14:13:17 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:13:17 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <dmhcad+klb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhnlt+fu2n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143675

 
> Amiable Dorsai:

<SNIP>
> Th Ministry in general is one of the great hanging threads in the
> whole series.  Harry's view of it has gotten progressively worse in
> each book, starting with Hagrid's genial contempt for Fudge in book
> one and ending with Harry's dismissal of Scrimgeour in book 6.  I
> think Jo is setting up a big shakeup for book 7.  
> 
> I think Umbridge, as the personification of everything bad about 
the
> Ministry, is set to take a big fall in Book 7.  I hope we get to 
see
> it "on camera".  One of the minor disappointments for me in HBP was
> that we didn't get to see Fudge get the boot.
> 


The Ministry is a hanging thread, all right.  And it hangs all the 
more prominently considering the personal factors involved, for 
instance Percy's ultimate fate and Harry's career plans.  

If Harry is to be an auror, and certainly the hints in HBP were 
strongly in that direction, then it would seem that a major shakeup 
in the Ministry would be necessary.  It isn't believable that Harry 
could have much of a career in a Ministry dominated by Scrimgeour 
and where Umbridge still has a lot of influence.  I'm not sure it's 
very believable that Harry would even WANT to work for the Ministry 
after all that's happened, but nevertheless...

The question is how would this be accomplished?  At the end of HBP 
the Ministry's position actually seems very strong.  Dumbledore, 
their most effective opponent within the system, is dead after 
having been shown to have been badly mistaken in some of his key 
judgments.  The public is in a worse panic than ever, and panicked 
people often cling even more tightly to their leaders.  There is a 
strong possibility that Hogwarts, which appears to be the chief seat 
of opposition to the Ministry, will be closed.

What could bring Scrimgeour, et. al., down?  It would take, I think, 
some kind of major bungling/treachery/faux pas.  Umbridge seems like 
a likely character to instigate such an event, and Percy seems 
positioned to be caught in the middle once again.

All very well and certainly plausible.  Yet the problem is that such 
a major storyline would take up quite a bit of space in a book that 
already has far too much to accomplish.  We are back to the problem 
that JKR has spent some 1300 pages over the last two books spinning 
her wheels, so that the final book must now do work that would have 
been better spread out over the last three.  If there was going to 
be a major Ministry storyline, then OOTP or HBP would have been the 
place to do it.  Now it may very well be too late to advance that 
particular plot thread, except perhaps in rapid telegraphic style 
where we are told, rather than shown, what has happened at the 
Ministry and given a scene with Umbridge to drive home what's 
happened.


Lupinlore








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Nov 29 15:17:34 2005
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:17:34 -0000
Subject: Love was Re: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dm449q+2s62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhree+5rke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143676

I have the feeling that this is, perhaps, the single most important 
theme of the HP story. I was wondering what all we really know about 
this "magic". I have only read the books once, all together, and just 
got done. This is the theme (or maybe more of a motif) that continues 
to beam out at me. 

Love can be subdivided, too, into the properties of loyalty and 
courage (what is right is not always easy). What other elements are 
covered that may construct a part of this potent protection?

We think of the protection of love in regards to Harry and Lily, but 
there are other incidences where, in particular, loyalty (which is 
very intricately associated with love) play a part. Harry is 
DD's "man, through and through". His loyalty gave him the protection 
or at least the tools he needed to overcome Tom in the Chamber of 
Secrets. Exponentionally, Harry has the ability to represent those 
factors back out to those around him. 

Originally, the protection of love was such that LV could not even 
touch Harry. That is definitely gone, but as seen at the end of GoF, 
he still cannot posess him. DD really pounds home that it is just the 
love of Lily that affords Harry protection but Harry's ability *to 
love* that protects him. As Harry grows older and the pure innoncence 
of youth is lost, Harry's biggest threat, I think, is the intrusion 
of other emotions (only natural both because of life experience, but 
also, let's face it, hormones as well)possibly eclipsing his good 
nature. We see more and more anger from Harry, as well as obsessive 
revenge tendancies beginning to form. 

The hope is Harry has felt pity even for his worst enemies, to some 
degree. During the penseive experiences in watching LV and in 
watching Draco. Pity is like an "off shoot" property of love. I think 
it was very important to DD that Harry recognize that. I think pity 
is a link to understanding and that to overcome LV, Harry has to 
understand him (which we well know he is capable of). How far can he 
go in this without losing his (well nurtured by DD) balance?

And my last thought, at this time is, what kind of protection did DD 
impart to Harry with his sacrifice? I am of the opinion (we shall 
see) that Snape was well within DD's confidence to kill him in order 
to protect both Harry and Draco. Draco is not yet a lost cause. He 
has not yet killed and moreover, does not really want to...yet. I 
still believe that DD is not such an idiot that his trust in Snape 
was a complete mistake. The end of HBP was a true (to borrow a Star 
Trek phrase) Kobayashi Maru situation...a no win situation that is a 
test of character. 

I was just wondering what other thoughts folks had on this subject.

kchuplis








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 29 15:44:57 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:44:57 -0000
Subject: Mad-Eye and the Longbottoms
Message-ID: <dmht1p+ojo1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143677

I was thinking the Longbottom storyline was finished after JKR's 
post-HBP comments, but re-reading GOF reminded me of possible 
unfinished business.

Mad-Eye shows up in the two earliest Pensieve scenes of the trials, 
with body parts intact save the chunk off his nose from bringing in 
Rosier. Well, Harry didn't mention his leg, but he definitely had 
two regular eyes. Then by the time of the last memory of the 
Longbottom trial, he's absent. 

So assuming Mad-Eye was the one to bring the Pensieve four into 
custody, losing his eye in the process, he might have something left 
to share that he learned from the defendants. A clue he didn't 
realize was meaningful at the time, possibly something to do with 
the horcruxes. It seems possible Bella knew there was at least one 
horcrux when she said: The Dark Lord, in the past, entrusted me with 
his most precious--" (chap. 2, p. 29, Scholastic) At the very least 
she thought his immortality experiments worked and he was not dead, 
and that lead to the torture of the people looking for him.

And if any of those elaborate memory-charmed Neville theories in the 
archives are true, this would be the point to bring them into the 
story! I suspect his memory loss is more symbolic though, that life 
has always been difficult for him and there are many things he would 
rather forget. :(

Jen, who thought Brendan Gleeson made a brilliant Crouch!Moody.








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Nov 29 15:33:06 2005
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:33:06 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
In-Reply-To: <dmheaa+upt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhsbi+i31g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143678

Abhikush wrote:
<SNIP>
> I was reading chapter summary from the HP-Lexicon and one thing I 
> found striking was that there is only one holiday (religious) that 
is 
> ever highlighted in the series and that is Christmas. 
<SNIP>


They also mention Easter and Mrs. Weasley sends chocolate eggs. 
However, neither holiday is dwelt on in any religious sense but 
rather more as "breaks" consistent with the western school systems.

Kchuplis 








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Tue Nov 29 15:42:28 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:42:28 -0000
Subject: DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice WAS: Love was Re: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dmhree+5rke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhst4+osir@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143679

Kchuplis wrote:
>
<SNIP>
And my last thought, at this time is, what kind of protection did 
DD 
> impart to Harry with his sacrifice? I am of the opinion (we shall 
> see) that Snape was well within DD's confidence to kill him in 
order 
> to protect both Harry and Draco. Draco is not yet a lost cause. He 
> has not yet killed and moreover, does not really want to...yet. I 
> still believe that DD is not such an idiot that his trust in Snape 
> was a complete mistake. The end of HBP was a true (to borrow a 
Star 
> Trek phrase) Kobayashi Maru situation...a no win situation that is 
a 
> test of character. 
<snip>

Lupinlore:
That would be fascinating and moving -- if Snape were the hero of 
the series.  But he's not, and making the Tower Scene about Snape's 
terrible decision and (implied) strength and nobility of character 
essentially, IMO, tries to change that fact.  This is "Harry Potter 
and ...." not "Severus Snape and his Redemption" or "Severus Snape 
and the Kobayashi Maru."  

JKR has made great emphasis that the reason she killed by Dumbledore 
and Sirius was because Harry had to face his destiny "alone" (i.e. 
helped and supported only be his peers).  Making Snape a "superspy" 
or a "tragic hero" not only severely undercuts Harry as the hero of 
the series, it also makes JKR herself into a liar -- which I don't 
think she is (even if she does sometimes get her details mixed up).

Lupinlore










From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Nov 29 16:22:10 2005
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:22:10 -0000
Subject: DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice WAS: Love was Re: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dmhst4+osir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmhv7i+j5si@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143680

Lupinlore:
> That would be fascinating and moving -- if Snape were the hero of 
> the series.  But he's not, and making the Tower Scene about Snape's 
> terrible decision and (implied) strength and nobility of character 
> essentially, IMO, tries to change that fact.  This is "Harry Potter 
> and ...." not "Severus Snape and his Redemption" or "Severus Snape 
> and the Kobayashi Maru."  
> 
> JKR has made great emphasis that the reason she killed by 
> Dumbledore and Sirius was because Harry had to face his 
> destiny "alone" (i.e. helped and supported only be his peers).  
> Making Snape a "superspy" or a "tragic hero" not only severely 
> undercuts Harry as the hero of the series, it also makes JKR 
> herself into a liar -- which I don't think she is (even if she does 
> sometimes get her details mixed up).


I don't think that makes Snape the hero of the piece, myself. 
Afterall, it isn't as though they need fall into each others arms at 
the end of book VII. It's possible for both Harry and Snape to be 
loyal to DD for different reasons. I truly believe Snape detests 
Harry, but there is *something* we don't know about why DD trusted 
Snape so much. Nor does it preclude Harry having to go on alone. 
Harry is the only one who can kill LV (I think that is quite well 
established now). It simply means that I can certainly see DD 
extracting this kind of promise from Snape. I can see Snape really 
*wanting* to protect Draco and *having* to protect Harry because of 
whatever binds him to DD. 

There was also the nasty little complication of him (Snape) dying if 
he did not protect Draco to his fullest extent. My guess on the 
unbreakable vow is that "protection" may be defined to trigger death 
by whatever the true belief of the parties involved were. We have no 
real proof (or maybe I missed something) that Narcissa really would 
like Draco to be a full blown DE. It was, perhaps, as much an act of 
self preservation as anything else. It was still a no win situation, 
I believe, and could still support DD trusting Snape rather than it 
being some underscoring of "Evil Snape". It seems to me, if Snape is 
really LV the second, that was a lot of overkill at the beginning of 
HBP with the whole Unbreakable Vow scenario. 

kchuplis







From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 29 15:54:05 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:54:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
References: <dmgp8f+kibu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b301c5f4fd$214ee910$4a87400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143681

hekatesheadband:

> The smaller shame is that he's a horrid teacher - Care of Magical
> Creatures, as opposed to Abuse of Monsters, could be a wonderful
> class. Actually, it was starting on the right foot until the incident
> with Malfoy and Buckbeak - and I'll add that while it was foolish of
> Hagrid to start his first lesson, with beginner students, with
> something like Hippogryffs, that was entirely Malfoy's fault.

Magpie:

Sorry, but I can't ever let this pass.  It was not *entirely* Malfoy's 
fault. Hagrid was irresponsible in that class from the beginning, and that a 
boy got hurt was no surprise.  Maybe it's happier that it was Malfoy and he 
had just said, "You're not dangerous at all, are you?  You big ugly brute," 
so nobody feels badly for him (especially afterwards) but I can't believe 
anyone would blame that situation *entirely* on the kid if this were the 
real world.

What Malfoy did: Try to show off in a class with dangerous animals, for 
which he got hurt.  Happen to not be listening during that ten seconds when 
Hagrid said, "Don't insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do."

What Hagrid did: What he always does.  He didn't stress safety at all, 
presented important instructions in passing, didn't watch over the class 
carefully, sent a pack of kids into a herd of dangerous animals on their
first day (Neville was running back and forth panicked before Malfoy got 
hurt--Hagrid just stuck Harry up on the thing and slapped its behind).

What Malfoy does is so minor that, iirc, *Hagrid* does it in the movie 
version, patting Buckbeak while affectionately calling him a brute. Malfoy 
has to do more on film, presumably to make Hagrid look better.

So the thing is, Malfoy pays for what he does wrong by getting hurt--and he 
learns his lesson after that first class. By fifth year he's not any more 
pleasant, but he's positively jumpy at the idea that he's missed something 
Hagrid said.  Hagrid hasn't learned anything.  All the kids in his class are 
nervous, he's still resentful at questions about safety, most of the class
is usually shown to agree with what Malfoy says in his class.  He's an 
unpopular teacher and nobody wants to take his class.  He's not actively 
evil, but I don't know...when does that stop mattering?  For instance, in 
PS/SS Ron helps him with his illegal dragon and gets bitten, and Hagrid 
blames it on Ron. I wouldn't have much patience with that in a friend.  All 
the kids at the school seem aware most of all in his class that he won't 
make it clear how dangerous animals are, and that if they get hurt it will 
be their fault.  Knowing that Malfoy "deserved it" doesn't seem to make 
anybody more confident.

-m






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 29 16:58:26 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:58:26 -0000
Subject: DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice WAS: Love was Re: Lily's protection
In-Reply-To: <dmhst4+osir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmi1bi+4jg2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143682


> Lupinlore:
> That would be fascinating and moving -- if Snape were the hero of 
> the series.  But he's not, and making the Tower Scene about Snape's 
> terrible decision and (implied) strength and nobility of character 
> essentially, IMO, tries to change that fact.  This is "Harry Potter 
> and ...." not "Severus Snape and his Redemption" or "Severus Snape 
> and the Kobayashi Maru."  
> 
> JKR has made great emphasis that the reason she killed by Dumbledore 
> and Sirius was because Harry had to face his destiny "alone" (i.e. 
> helped and supported only be his peers). 

Pippin:
Adult!Harry and Snape *are* peers. It only remains for Harry to realize it.
 Even if Harry returns to Hogwarts, Snape would no longer have any claim 
to superiority over him either as  a professor (as Snape has  left his post)  or 
as an adult, once Harry turns seventeen. 

The way I see it, Harry and Snape both have to grow out of their roles of
victim and oppressor, which I believe JKR sees as a very limited way to 
confront the world. 

Pippin






From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 17:12:35 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:12:35 -0000
Subject: Mad-Eye and the Longbottoms
In-Reply-To: <dmht1p+ojo1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmi263+u27t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143683

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
>
> I was thinking the Longbottom storyline was finished after JKR's 
> post-HBP comments, but re-reading GOF reminded me of possible 
> unfinished business.
> 
> Mad-Eye shows up in the two earliest Pensieve scenes of the trials, 
> with body parts intact save the chunk off his nose from bringing in 
> Rosier. Well, Harry didn't mention his leg, but he definitely had 
> two regular eyes. Then by the time of the last memory of the 
> Longbottom trial, he's absent. 
> 
> So assuming Mad-Eye was the one to bring the Pensieve four into 
> custody, losing his eye in the process, he might have something 
left 
> to share that he learned from the defendants. A clue he didn't 
> realize was meaningful at the time, possibly something to do with 
> the horcruxes. It seems possible Bella knew there was at least one 
> horcrux when she said: The Dark Lord, in the past, entrusted me 
with 
> his most precious--" (chap. 2, p. 29, Scholastic) At the very least 
> she thought his immortality experiments worked and he was not dead, 
> and that lead to the torture of the people looking for him.
> 
> And if any of those elaborate memory-charmed Neville theories in 
the 
> archives are true, this would be the point to bring them into the 
> story! I suspect his memory loss is more symbolic though, that life 
> has always been difficult for him and there are many things he 
would 
> rather forget. :(
> 
> Jen, who thought Brendan Gleeson made a brilliant Crouch!Moody.
>

n_longbottom01:

Ooooh... I like it.  A captured Bellatrix has information regaurding 
the whereabouts of a Horcrux.  It would be the reversal of her 
torture of the Longbottoms if Neville were involved with forcing the 
information out of her.

Both Neville and Harry have good reason to hate Bellatrix, and they 
may be tempted to torture her.  Though they may be tempted, I don't 
think they would give in.  Maybe they could brew up some Veritaserum 
to get the information out of her.  Neville (through his own 
insistance) brewing the Veritaserum used on Bellatrix would be a 
satisfying ending to this loose end.  Neville resisting the evil urge 
to hurt Bella like she hurt his parents, and then completing a 
dificult task in one of his weakest areas (potions), in order to 
force the information out of Bella (where she had previously been 
unsuccessful at forcing information out of Neville's parents).

n_longbottom01







From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Tue Nov 29 17:10:04 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:10:04 +0100
Subject: Universitality of Harry Potter
References: <dmheaa+upt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d301c5f507$be9b6b80$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143684

abhikush wrote:
> I was also wondering
> if there are other religions in the wizard world besides Christianity.
> I would like to know the views of others in the group.

Miles:
I think, the answer to this can lead us to a general question. As far as I
remember, there is not a single piece of any specific religion mentioned
(apart from more or less folkloristic items) concerning the entire Harry
Potter series. We can assume, that there is a more or less Christian
background within the British wizard community. But we learn about wizards
in Uganda, Africa in general and all over the world, so we can assume other
religious backgrounds for wizards e.g. in India, Arabia, or Australia.
Rowling does not mention the role of religion in wizards' world, but she
deals with basic ethical questions, which matter in any religion as well as
for atheists, agnostics a.s.o. And in the Potterverse, there is a soul
within every human being, the soul being a nonphysical part of them, which
can exist inside and outside these human beings.The believe in a soul is
part of almost every religion I know, and will meet the agenda of most
possible readers all over the world, at least they all can understand the
general idea from their own cultural and religious surrounding. And as we
know, Harry Potter is popular all over the world.

I do not know whether this undetermined position towards religious aspects
is taken intentionally by Rowling. We could discuss this, there are some
hints in interviews. But the outcome of this position is a big part of the
"mystery" about the world wide success of Harry Potter. You do not need much
religious background to understand the questions which are important in the
story. It is about good and bad, about love and hatred, about to be true or
untruthful, about friendship and care. To understand this, you have to be a
human being - not more.

There are some cultural details that distinct Harry Potter as an English boy
and his sorrounding as British/Irish (the Weasleys are surely from Ireland
;) ). I do frown reading about kidney pie, certainly. And a reader from an
Islamic country or a Jew may be disgusted at people eating pork. But these
details are not decisive for the whole story, they are just folklore. The
core of the story is universal.

There is something else making Harry Potter universal: We see Harry Potter
entering a new world, which is only slightly similar to the world we all
know, and merely on some points connected to it. The wizarding world is new
to us - a reader from India would have to explore it only slightly more than
a reader from Britain to understand it.

When reading about Christian fundamentalists condemn Harry Potter as unholy,
and I bet Islamic or Hindu fundamentalists would join their choir, I just
think: well done, Joanne K. Rowling.

Miles






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 17:20:45 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:20:45 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <00b301c5f4fd$214ee910$4a87400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dmi2ld+scos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143685

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at a...> wrote:
>
> hekatesheadband:

I'll add that while it was foolish of
> > Hagrid to start his first lesson, with beginner students, with
> > something like Hippogryffs, that was entirely Malfoy's fault.
> 
> Magpie:
> 
> Sorry, but I can't ever let this pass.  It was not *entirely* Malfoy's 
> fault. Hagrid was irresponsible in that class from the beginning,
and that a 
> boy got hurt was no surprise. 

Exactly.  How many times has Harry not listened to Snape in class? 
But when has that resulted in anything other than his potion not
coming out? If Harry was hospitalized in Potions for not listening to
one line of instructions I don't think everyone would be comfortably
blaming Harry.. and I'm curious to know how this relates to the
Neville toad incident, given that that was a case of not following
clear instructions!  I love Hagrid to pieces, but saying what happened
was Malfoy's fault doesn't stand up.  If I put a 13-year-old with no
experience up on a dangerous horse, and rattled off a list of
instructions, and the kid got bucked off for not managing the reins
exactly right-- that is MY fault, not his, and few parents or courts
of law would disagree.

-- Sydney, who loves Hagrid and is no big fan of Draco, but knows
enough about large unpredictable animals to know who to blame for the
Buckbeak incident







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 17:25:27 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:25:27 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <00b301c5f4fd$214ee910$4a87400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dmi2u7+kvgk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143686

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at a...> wrote:

<snip>

> What Malfoy did: Try to show off in a class with dangerous animals, 
> for which he got hurt.  Happen to not be listening during that ten 
> seconds when Hagrid said, "Don't insult 'em or it's the last thing 
> you'll do."

Oh, it's not *that* innocuous; Malfoy 'happens' to not be listening 
(a delightfully obscure passive construction) because he and his 
friends are off "talking in an undertone"; Harry gets the distinct 
impression that they were plotting to disrupt the lesson.  Impossible 
to tell whether Harry's impression is correct, but this speculation 
about intent is actually in the text, as opposed to our own 
completely external speculations.  This is at the beginning of the 
lesson, where Hagrid is listing off Things That One Must Know.  It's 
not quite like losing your thread of thought during the course of 
listing 15 prepositional-object verbs in the middle of class.  

There is an air of intent about the talking, and that's why I think 
responsibility adheres tightly to Draco for the whole thing.

<snip>

> He's not actively evil, but I don't know...when does that stop 
> mattering? 

At least in how it falls out to me, my perceptions of what I think 
JKR is writing, I think the lack of active intent matters quite a 
bit.  It's indisputable that Hagrid does harm, but it's completely 
without malice--and I suspect that JKR plays the card of making the 
*actual* harm that he does fairly slight precisely because of that.

Magic has this amazing way of being able to divine, and be responsive 
to, actual intent.  Nice literary device, that.

-Nora admits to dozing off a little during said list of prepositional-
object verbs






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 29 17:58:04 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:58:04 -0000
Subject: Can Slytherins be ALL bad?
In-Reply-To: <438C5D5B.9010007@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dmi4rc+vmfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143687

Bart wrote:
>snip<
> 
> The point is that in real life, 25% of the population are NOT a 
>bunch of 
> worthless jerks, and there are definitely positive aspects of the 
> Slytherin personality; JKR just seems to be reluctant to show them.

Potioncat:
Oops, I think I snipped too much!

(Sounds of List-Elf whispering, "You can never snip too much.")

Good post, Bart. I agree that JKR doesn't go out of her way to 
demonstrate "normal" Slytherins. But take a look at her comments 
about Slytherin House:

BEGIN INTERVIEW*******************************

The Leaky Cauldron Mugglenet Interview 16 July 2005

JKR: But they're not all bad. They literally are not all bad. 
[Pause.] Well, the deeper answer, the non-flippant answer, would be 
that you have to embrace all of a person, you have to take them with 
their flaws, and everyone's got them. It's the same way with the 
student body. If only they could achieve perfect unity, you would 
have an absolute unstoppable force, and I suppose it's that craving 
for unity and wholeness that means that they keep that quarter of the 
school that maybe does not encapsulate the most generous and noble 
qualities, in the hope, in the very Dumbledore-esque hope that they 
will achieve union, and they will achieve harmony. Harmony is the 
word.

>snip<

ES: Couldn't they just put them into the other three houses, and 
maybe it wouldn't be a perfect fit for all of them, but a close 
enough fit that they would get by and wouldn't be in such a negative 
environment?

JKR: They could. But you must remember, I have thought about this ?

ES: Even their common room is a gloomy dark room?

JKR: Well, I don't know, because I think the Slytherin common room 
has a spooky beauty.

ES: It's gotta be a bad idea to stick all the Death Eaters' kids 
together in one place.

JKR: But they're not all ? don't think I don't take your point, but ? 
we, the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all 
there ? you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of 
Death Eaters' children. They are a small fraction of the total 
Slytherin population. I'm not saying all the other Slytherins are 
adorable, but they're certainly not Draco, they're certainly not, you 
know, Crabbe and Goyle. They're not all like that, that would be too 
brutal for words, wouldn't it?

ES: But there aren't a lot of Death Eater children in the other 
houses, are there?

JKR: You will have people connected with Death Eaters in the other 
houses, yeah, absolutely.

ES: Just in lesser numbers.

JKR: Probably. I hear you. It is the tradition to have four houses, 
but in this case, I wanted them to correspond roughly to the four 
elements. So Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is 
earth, and Slytherin is water, hence the fact that their common room 
is under the lake. So again, it was this idea of harmony and balance, 
that you had four necessary components and by integrating them you 
would make a very strong place. But they remain fragmented, as we 
know.

END INTERVIEW*************************************

If you take away the Pureblood Superiority Ideology, you have 
cunning, ambitious individuals. And where would we be without some 
ambitious people in our society? 

It appears that JKR doesn't view Slytherin House with the limited 
view we have....but perhaps she hasn't felt the need to go into the 
details of the Houses. It makes sense to me that the DA wouldn't have 
Slytherin members, I don't think the Trio would have trusted them. 

To me a prime Slytherin type would be the surgeon, famous for the new 
procedures he developes and high risk cases he takes on. He's doing 
it as much for the glory as for the benefit to mankind. 

Potioncat, old enough to know better, but old enough to think of 
a "surgeon" as a "he."






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 29 18:48:04 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:48:04 -0000
Subject: Eileen & Tobias was (What is poetic justice? WAS: Re:
In-Reply-To: <dmfrt9+otmm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmi7p4+9eig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143688

> Potioncat quoted canon: 
> <snip> "--a Hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while 
a 
> > small dark-haired boy cried in a corner..." <snip>
> > "He was sure he had just broken into Snape's memories, that he 
had 
> just seen scenes from Snape's childhood, and 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 ey
[e]s..."
> <snip commentary>


> Carol notes:
 More important,
> however, Harry's perception (provided via the narrator) doesn't 
match
> the actual memory. Since the memories are Snape's, I'm sure he's 
right
> that the child in all the memories is Severus. But he's *assuming*,
> perhaps based on physical resemblance, that the man in the earliest
> memory is Severus's father (and the woman is his mother). But note
> that his *interpretation* shows the "parents shouting" at each 
other,
> whereas the actual memory shows the *man* shouting and the woman
> "cowering." The interpretation does not match the memory, which 
Harry
> has seen only moments before.


Potioncat:
 One of Carol's strengths is her attention to detail. And this time 
it's presented a different interpretation than I'd come up with. As 
much as the Shouting Man/Cowering Woman scene has been discussed on 
this site over the years, I had never actually noticed the canon that 
I quoted above until I quoted it. And I didn't really pick up on the 
fact that it contradicted itself...sort of. 

In my mind's eye, I see a man shouting and a woman in a 
ducking/wincing/stooped posture, but silent. Then, with the added bit 
of Harry's reflection, I guess I thought, OK, Harry's glimpse must 
have included her rising up and yelling back. But Carol is right. 
That isn't what he sees. The memory in Snape's head is "cowering 
woman." (Of course, Snape knows who the individuals are, even if we 
do not.) The interpretation in Harry's mind is "shouting parents."

>Carol: 
> I do appreciate Harry's sudden (and brief) flash of empathy for 
Snape
> (too bad the Occlumency lessons didn't end with a better mutual
> understanding based on the common bond of bad childhoods), but his
> swiftly drawn conclusion that the man and woman are Severus's 
parents,
> though natural, is not necessarily accurate, and his view of the 
woman
> as shouting blatantly contradicts the evidence.

Potioncat:
So, stepping back a little. Why did JKR write it this way? (I 
snipped, but agree, I don't think JKR forgot what she wrote.) Is her 
intent to show us Snape's unhappy homelife? Is  her intent to confuse 
us about his homelife? Was the addition of Harry's thoughts put there 
to show Harry's compassion, or to mislead us?

I'm going to remind the list of another possibility. All rise in 
honor of Kneasy who thinks the boy is Snapes!Son and the the shouting 
man is Severus. If you look at the events in the memory, we have 
shouting man/crying boy; teen shooting flies; boy on broom. If the 
memories are in chronological order, although reversed, the man is 
Snape. If the events are in no particular order, the crying boy could 
be Snape.


> Carol,
> still sure for reasons previously stated that the man in the
> memory is not Muggle!Tobias but Grandpa Prince and not at all
> convinced that Spinner's End was Severus's childhood home

Potioncat:
I lean toward Spinner's End as childhood home because it fits the 
description of the plant in the dark. However, I would be just as 
happy with Spinner's End as his hide-out, but his real home Snape 
Manor just outside Snape Castle. (OK, make that Prince Manor.)


Potioncat: who really, really doesn't know, but thinks there are a 
lot of fun ideas out there!
>








From happydogue at aol.com  Tue Nov 29 18:51:52 2005
From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:51:52 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can Slytherins be ALL bad?
In-Reply-To: <dmi4rc+vmfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C7C32D18D79461-49C-13697@mblk-r12.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143689

Who in todays society can we see as a slytherin?  Someone like Martha Steward is drive with high goals of achievement yet, she uses those talents and drives to come up with some interesting things.
 
J 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: potioncat <willsonkmom at msn.com>
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:58:04 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can Slytherins be ALL bad?


Bart wrote:
>snip<
> 
> The point is that in real life, 25% of the population are NOT a 
>bunch of 
> worthless jerks, and there are definitely positive aspects of the 
> Slytherin personality; JKR just seems to be reluctant to show them.

Potioncat:
Oops, I think I snipped too much!

(Sounds of List-Elf whispering, "You can never snip too much.")

Good post, Bart. I agree that JKR doesn't go out of her way to 
demonstrate "normal" Slytherins. But take a look at her comments 
about Slytherin House:

BEGIN INTERVIEW*******************************

The Leaky Cauldron Mugglenet Interview 16 July 2005

JKR: But they're not all bad. They literally are not all bad. 
[Pause.] Well, the deeper answer, the non-flippant answer, would be 
that you have to embrace all of a person, you have to take them with 
their flaws, and everyone's got them. It's the same way with the 
student body. If only they could achieve perfect unity, you would 
have an absolute unstoppable force, and I suppose it's that craving 
for unity and wholeness that means that they keep that quarter of the 
school that maybe does not encapsulate the most generous and noble 
qualities, in the hope, in the very Dumbledore-esque hope that they 
will achieve union, and they will achieve harmony. Harmony is the 
word.

>snip<

ES: Couldn't they just put them into the other three houses, and 
maybe it wouldn't be a perfect fit for all of them, but a close 
enough fit that they would get by and wouldn't be in such a negative 
environment?

JKR: They could. But you must remember, I have thought about this ?

ES: Even their common room is a gloomy dark room?

JKR: Well, I don't know, because I think the Slytherin common room 
has a spooky beauty.

ES: It's gotta be a bad idea to stick all the Death Eaters' kids 
together in one place.

JKR: But they're not all ? don't think I don't take your point, but ? 
we, the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all 
there ? you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of 
Death Eaters' children. They are a small fraction of the total 
Slytherin population. I'm not saying all the other Slytherins are 
adorable, but they're certainly not Draco, they're certainly not, you 
know, Crabbe and Goyle. They're not all like that, that would be too 
brutal for words, wouldn't it?

ES: But there aren't a lot of Death Eater children in the other 
houses, are there?

JKR: You will have people connected with Death Eaters in the other 
houses, yeah, absolutely.

ES: Just in lesser numbers.

JKR: Probably. I hear you. It is the tradition to have four houses, 
but in this case, I wanted them to correspond roughly to the four 
elements. So Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is 
earth, and Slytherin is water, hence the fact that their common room 
is under the lake. So again, it was this idea of harmony and balance, 
that you had four necessary components and by integrating them you 
would make a very strong place. But they remain fragmented, as we 
know.

END INTERVIEW*************************************

If you take away the Pureblood Superiority Ideology, you have 
cunning, ambitious individuals. And where would we be without some 
ambitious people in our society? 

It appears that JKR doesn't view Slytherin House with the limited 
view we have....but perhaps she hasn't felt the need to go into the 
details of the Houses. It makes sense to me that the DA wouldn't have 
Slytherin members, I don't think the Trio would have trusted them. 

To me a prime Slytherin type would be the surgeon, famous for the new 
procedures he developes and high risk cases he takes on. He's doing 
it as much for the glory as for the benefit to mankind. 

Potioncat, old enough to know better, but old enough to think of 
a "surgeon" as a "he."






Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to 
which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Tue Nov 29 19:07:28 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:07:28 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <dmhnlt+fu2n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmi8tg+6913@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143690

> 
> What could bring Scrimgeour, et. al., down?  It would take, I think, 
> some kind of major bungling/treachery/faux pas.  Umbridge seems like 
> a likely character to instigate such an event, and Percy seems 
> positioned to be caught in the middle once again.
> 
> Lupinlore
>
Have you ruled out that Percy may be a plant inside the Ministry, 
working for OoP through his father, or that Umbridge may turn out to 
be VW?

La Gatta







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 19:09:51 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:09:51 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <dmhcad+klb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmi91v+7e21@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143691

Amiable Dorsai wrote:
<snip>
> I think Umbridge, as the personification of everything bad about the
> Ministry, is set to take a big fall in Book 7.  I hope we get to see
> it "on camera".  One of the minor disappointments for me in HBP was
> that we didn't get to see Fudge get the boot.

Carol responds:
I rather like Fudge, weak though he is, and at his worst under
Umbridge's influence in OoP. Once he concedes that Voldemort really is
back, he returns to his usual self, concerned with informing the
Muggle PM of goings on in the WW that might affect Muggles even though
he's no longer the Minister for Magic. I certainly prefer him to
Scrimgeour, who strikes me as more like a general in command of a
military junta than a diplomat.

As for Umbridge, except for her prejudice against werewolves,
centaurs, and other "halfbreeds" (as if either were the result of a
human/beast, erm, marriage), strikes me as exemplifying government
interference in school administration. (I could be wrong, as I'm not
British and don't really know what's going on there.) But note her
views on preventing "progress for progress's sake" and "pruning . . .
practices that ought to be prohibited" (OoP Am. ed. 213-14). As
Hermione notes, the Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts, which may
reflect JKR's views on what's actually happening in British schools.

Be that as it may, she has always reminded me of Dostoevsky's Grand
Inquisitor (her own chosen title later in the book High Inquisitor,
can't be coincidental). The Grand Inquisitor (who, of course, was only
a fiction within a work of fiction, but that's beside the point)
believed that the masses were incapable of meeting their own needs or
making their own decisions. They needed those who knew what was best
for them to keep them contented and happy, even if that meant burning
heretics and other rabble-rousers at the stake. Umbridge's view of the
Hogwarts students as little children ("Well, it is lovely to be back
at Hogwarts . . . and to see such happy little faces looking back at
me!" 212) who need to be kept safe (taught only the theory of DADA,
not any actual spells, which might endanger them) and assured that
He_Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not coming back is exactly the view of the
Grand Inquisitor that the masses must be protected from anything that
will disturb their tranquility, including the fear of death, by
punishing those who spread such "lies." (The Grand Inquisitor burns
heretics; Umbridge burns the message "I will not tell lies" into
Harry's hand.)

If we must have poetic justice, how about having her serve her own
detention, writing "I will not tell lies" in her own blood? Or if
that's too brutal, too "eye for an eye," how about just having the
word "Liar" written in permanent pimples on her ugly, toadlike cheeks?

Carol








From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 29 17:59:07 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:59:07 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
References: <dmi2u7+kvgk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010801c5f50e$988cf8d0$4a87400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143692

Nrenka:
> Oh, it's not *that* innocuous; Malfoy 'happens' to not be listening
> (a delightfully obscure passive construction) because he and his
> friends are off "talking in an undertone"; Harry gets the distinct
> impression that they were plotting to disrupt the lesson.  Impossible
> to tell whether Harry's impression is correct, but this speculation
> about intent is actually in the text, as opposed to our own
> completely external speculations.

Magpie:

And?  He's not listening.  Perhaps his nefarious reasons for not listening 
make him even more "deserving" of getting slashed for his sins in a "ha ha" 
kind of way, but the fact remains, he's not listening when Hagrid says, 
"Don't insult one or it's the last thing you'll do" and Hagrid's not 
stressing it.

Nrenka:

 This is at the beginning of the
> lesson, where Hagrid is listing off Things That One Must Know.  It's
> not quite like losing your thread of thought during the course of
> listing 15 prepositional-object verbs in the middle of class.

Magpie:

Not that Hagrid presented it as being all that important and made sure 
everyone was paying attention and understood it.  Kids aren't generally 
assumed to instinctively recognize Things You Must Know.  All kids' (and 
adults') minds wander in every class--including Harry's--for good reasons 
and bad.  Snape teaches poisons and yet Harry isn't above planning a 
firecracker plan in his class. What happens to a kid not listening in 
Hagrid's class is just very different from what happens to one in Binn's and 
Snape's, in a way that does not reflect well on Hagrid. People certainly 
listen to him in class now, because they fear for their lives and know they 
have to protect themselves.  Snape uses this method too, I guess, by clearly 
hinting he will feed the kids' Potions that only their own antidotes will 
cure, or forces Neville to feed his Potion to his toad.  In Hagrid's class 
it's more for real.

Nrenka:
>
> There is an air of intent about the talking, and that's why I think
> responsibility adheres tightly to Draco for the whole thing.

Magpie:

Whatever Draco's dreadful intent, it doesn't effect what Hagrid's doing. 
Malfoy is the one who pays the price for not paying attention, but the 
stupid things Hagrid does are his own responsibility--and he winds up paying 
for them in the text too.

> <snip>

Nrenka:
> At least in how it falls out to me, my perceptions of what I think
> JKR is writing, I think the lack of active intent matters quite a
> bit.  It's indisputable that Hagrid does harm, but it's completely
> without malice--and I suspect that JKR plays the card of making the
> *actual* harm that he does fairly slight precisely because of that.

Magpie:

Yes, I think she does that with a lot of people, including Hagrid (and 
Malfoy himself).  Which is why there's no feeling, for me at least, that 
Hagrid will be punished further or anything like that.  But it doesn't make 
him a good teacher or make what happens in his class all down to Malfoy. 
Hagrid "pays" in the text by suffering the natural consequences of his 
actions in terms of nobody trusting him around animals. It keeps him from 
being a real bad guy, but also keeps him from being a responsible or 
successful teacher.  Hagrid's intent *isn't* really good. He's not trying to 
hurt anyone, but he puts his own satisfaction above everything else.

Sydney:

I love Hagrid to pieces, but saying what happened
was Malfoy's fault doesn't stand up.  If I put a 13-year-old with no 
experience up on a dangerous horse, and rattled off a list of instructions, 
and the kid got bucked off for not managing the reins exactly right-- that 
is MY fault, not his, and few parents or courts
of law would disagree.

Magpie:

Exactly--plenty of people do give lessons to kids that involve animals and 
don't deal with it like Hagrid does. And yes, it is especially odd given the 
Neville situation--Neville, who also screws up and does the wrong thing. 
Yes there are plenty of differences between the two situations, but some of 
them have to do with Snape's class being fundamentally safe and Hagrid's 
being fundamentally dangerous.  It's not about Hagrid being evil, but it's 
not like this isn't a basic part of his job.

-m 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 19:49:14 2005
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:49:14 -0000
Subject: What happens to a person's pensive after they're gone?
In-Reply-To: <dmhjqd+npev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmibbq+2pig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143693

CMC wrote: 
> Actually, Snape is not shown with his *own* Pensieve - when Harry 
> enters Snape's dungeon to begin his first Occlumency lesson, Harry 
> notices that Snape has *Dumbledore's* Pensieve:
> 
> "<snip> Harry's attention was drawn towards the desk, however, where
a shallow 
> stone basin engraved with runes and symbols lay in a pool of 
> candlelight. Harry recognised it at once - it was Dumbledore's 
> Pensieve. <snip>" 

Carol adds:
Moreover, Snape apparently puts his memories back in his head after
each Occlumency lesson since Harry sees him take out three memories
each time. Although JKR implies in an interview that the Pensieve is
used for storing memories, her main concern is answering the question
about the objectivity of those memories, not what happens to the
memories after they've been "used."

DD uses the Pensieve in GoF to figure out who put Harry's name into
the Goblet, studying his memories of Barty Crouch Sr., Karkaroff, and
Alastor Moody, as well as related matters like Bertha Jorkins, to
solve the mystery. Snape in OoP uses the Pensieve simply as a place to
*temporarily* store his memories during the Occlumency lessons. Almost
certainly they're not still in there when he returns the Pensieve to
DD (as we know he does because DD has it again in HBP) after the
Occlumency lessons fail. Also, the Pensieve seems to be *empty* when
Snape puts his own memories into it, meaning that DD's memories,
having served their purpose, have been removed. By the same token,
each time DD puts a memory (from a vial) into the Pensieve in HBP, the
other memories seem to have been removed, so that Harry and DD enter
only the specific memory that has just been placed there.

IOW, the Pensieve is not like the orbs that store(d) the Prophecies in
the DoM. It's not meant to store memories longterm. Almost certainly,
they're returned either to the head of the person the memory belongs
to, or, if that's someone other than DD or Snape, to the vial from
which DD retrieved them. If that's the case, none of Snape's memories,
and probably none of Dumbledore's, would remain in the Pensieve
itself. Quite possibly, however, some of them would have remained in
their labeled vials and McGonagall would know where they were stored.
Giving Harry permission to access them would be quite another matter. 

Supposing that DD has willed Harry the Pensieve to examine his own
memories, particularly Godric's Hollow, there's still the matter of
knowing how to use it. If, as some people suspect, Lupin is a
Legilimens, he might be able to extract that memory from Harry's head,
but Harry doesn't know how to do so himself.

Which reminds me--maybe the Pensieve is the answer to the missing
twenty-four hours and how DD knew that Lily's sacrifice had protected
Harry (and that LV wasn't dead). Just possibly he was able to extract
that very recent memory from Baby!Harry's head and find out what
really happened--except that he didn't notice the presence somewhere
in the background of a certain rat.

Carol









From wisdominolympia at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 19:14:37 2005
From: wisdominolympia at yahoo.com (wisdominolympia)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:14:37 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <dmh5um+mhir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmi9at+oo0t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143694

Lupinlore:
Now, what do you think JKR meant by that?  It's always dangerous to 
> read much into colloquialisms like "little bit" -- recall what 
people 
> were reading into her comment about how Harry would have a "little 
> romance" in HBP.  The definite thing is that we will be seeing her 
> again (and I suspect the mentions and glimpses of her in HBP were 
> JKR's way of keeping the character somewhat in view in preparation 
> for whatever is going to happen in the seventh book).
<snip>


I think Umbridge will defiantely make another appearance, she was at 
Dumbldore's funeral and I think that she was pointed out not only 
because of what she did to Harry, but because she will be coming 
back.  This is based on the fact that she has a warped sense of 
self.  After all she thought she was doing the right thing by sending 
a dementor after Harry.  She is still at the MoM and Scrigmore 
(forgive the spelling but I don't have the book in front of me) seems 
to just as dedicated to putting a good front as Fudge. While he can't 
ignore LV, he seems to be trying to whitewash it.  I think that this 
will give Umbridge an opportunity to worm her way back into Hogwarts 
and find a way to get in Harry's way over the summer.  Even if its 
only to make ammends so that Harry will support the MoM.

There was also no closure on Harry's part.  This woman made his life 
hell and help to cover up that LV was back.  So my other thought is 
that she is a loose end that would need to be tied up.

As always, this is just my opinion.   

wisdominolympia








From agdisney at msn.com  Tue Nov 29 18:03:16 2005
From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:03:16 -0000
Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding
Message-ID: <dmi554+b4mk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143695

This has been in the back of my mind for a while, so I'll throw it out 
& see how quick it will be torn apart.

We can assume that Mrs. Figg is not really Mrs. Figg due to the 
comments that her house smells like cabbage which is probably a 
constant supply of poly juice potion.

At Harry's trial in OOP, Mrs. Figg came to testify and it was noted 
that there was no record of her in the WW.  She says she is a squib. 
Her story was going to be checked out. (I don't have the book but that 
is the jist of it.) 

Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she is?
Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg?  It could be that he 
isn't allowed to use magic because it would blow his cover?  Maybe he 
is only waiting for Harry to turn 17 & then he will come out of hiding 
to help Harry with the horcruxes.

Andie











From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Nov 27 20:08:40 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:08:40 -0500
Subject: Four Books
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAgIiqBomqx0ukQ2W315eiaAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143696

I would like to know if anyone has read any of these books, and 
if so what do you think of them?

Bridger, Francis A CHARMED LIFE: THE SPIRITUALITY OF POTTERWORLD 
New York, 2002: Doubleday

Granger, John LOOKING FOR GOD IN HARRY POTTER ____, 2004: Tyndale 
House

Kern, Edmund M. THE WISDOM OF HARRY POTTER Amherst, NY, 2003: Prometheus Books

Neal, Connie THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO HARRY POTTER Louisville, KY, 
2002: Westminster/John Knox Press

As you can see by the dates, they are all to a certain extent 
'canon fodder'; one hopes that the authors will put out 
revised/expanded editions after HP-VII is published.

Bruce


*Elf Note to the group:  The elves would like to make clear 
that discussion of books that analyze the series in in-depth, 
critical, academic, etc., ways is indeed allowed here.  We 
do ask that people responding make their posts substantive 
(rather than just saying "I read this one and thought it was
good," or "Didn't like it," etc.).  Please also keep in mind 
that if your post is less about the books' analysis of canon, 
that you take your message to OTC instead.

Thanks, everyone!

--The List Elves






From Nanagose at aol.com  Tue Nov 29 20:08:36 2005
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:08:36 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
In-Reply-To: <dmheaa+upt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmicg4+n4id@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143697

Abhikush:
> I was reading chapter summary from the HP-Lexicon and one thing I 
> found striking was that there is only one holiday (religious) that 
> is ever highlighted in the series and that is Christmas. I was 
> wondering if there were any such holidays mentioned in the series so
> far. It seems a reasonable to assume that Christmas is celebrated in
> wizarding world with as much enthusiasm as in muggle world. I was 
> also wondering if there are other religions in the wizard world 
> besides Christianity. I would like to know the views of others in 
> the group.

Christina:

Religion in the WW is really very interesting.  IIRC, a couple of
characters have used the word "God" in the books- Fudge is one (when
he sees that Cedric Diggory is dead)...I feel like Draco is the other
but I could be wrong.

As for the celebration of Christmas, I have a feeling it is celebrated
in the wizarding world as a cultural/commercial holiday rather than a
religious one.  I don't know if it's the case in the UK, but here in
the US I know many families that decorate for and exchange gifts on
Christmas even though they are athiest, apathetic, or another religion
entirely.  The HP kids all exchange Christmas gifts, and decorations
are hung, but nobody goes to church.  I don't remember ever seeing a
Nativity scene, or anything else that suggests a religious side to the
celebration of Christmas.  

Although, doesn't Sirius sing, "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs" when he
hears that he'll have company for Christmas?  It really makes one
wonder if it's just a little funny parody that Sirius made up, or if
it was an actual song.  Sirius has hung around some non-purebloods in
his time (I actually think he went through a period of exploration of
Muggle culture to spite his folks, but that is complete speculation),
so he might know the song "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen."  However, if
the song isn't made up by Sirius, and is an actual wizarding song,
than it would suggest some penetration of religion into the WW.

It's also important to remember that relatively few people in the WW
are considered "pure-blood."  The majority of wizarding folk have
Muggle relatives.  Some overlap between the cultures is expected.

> Abhikush:
> I tried to do a search on the topic but could not find anything so I 
> have opened a new thread. Let me know if this has ever been 
> discussed.

Christina:
The Yahoo search mechanism is horrid.  I cringe every time I find
myself needing to use it.  Ick.


Christina






From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Tue Nov 29 20:37:12 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:37:12 -0000
Subject: Can Slytherins be ALL bad?
In-Reply-To: <438C5D5B.9010007@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dmie5o+iu55@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143698

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at s...> 
wrote:
>
> lagattalucianese wrote:
> > Which leads me to wonder it the Sorting Hat sometimes sorts 
students 
> > not into the house where they belong, but into the house it's 
told to 
> > sort them into. As for example, if Dumbledore knew he was going 
to 
> > need a distinctly un-Slytherin set of eyes and ears in Slytherin 
House 
> > in the not too remote future, might he not arrange to have Snape 
> > sorted there?
> 
> Bart:
> This brings up a problem with the lack of a 3rd dimension in much 
of 
> JKR's writing. In OOP, I was rather disappointed when no Slytherins 
> joined the DA. I had figured that was a good point for JKR to add a 
> dimension to the House of Slytherin.
> 
One of the points that Myers-Briggs/Kiersey analysis makes is that 
there is no such thing as a good or bad type. Certain types may not 
like like certain other types very much (for example, NTs tend to 
have issues with SPs), but each type has its strengths and its 
weaknesses, and needs to work together with the other types for 
everyone's advantage.

Come to think of it, doesn't the Sorting Hat make the same point? I 
believe it does:

Oh, know the perils, read the signs,
the warning history shows,
for our Hogwarts is in danger
from external, deadly foes
and we must unite inside her
or we'll crumble from within... 
> 
> Consider Aurors. It just seems to me that, out of all the houses, 
> Slytherin should put out the most Aurors. After all, the job 
requires a 
> highly skilled witch or wizard who is willing, for the most part, 
to 
> stick in the background. If you look at Phineas Nigellus (who is 
the the 
> best example of a good Slytherin we have), he seems like just the 
type. 
> Do what needs to be done, but don't stand out; let others take the 
> credit. Know your advantages and limitations. Think before you 
strike. 
> Don't do anything without knowing in advance what results you are 
trying 
> to achieve. These seem to be Slytherin characteristics, as well.
> 
> 	Bart
>
I don't picture Aurors being the Slytherin type particularly. (They 
actually seem more Gryffindor to me.) Slytherins are the consumate 
politicians; as the Sorting Hat says,

Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folks use any means
To achieve their ends.
...
And power-hungry Slytherin
loved those of great ambition.

To me, Horace Slughorn is the consumate good/neutral Slytherin, 
playing the social/political dynamic for all it's worth, and having a 
wonderful time while he's at it.

La Gatta







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 21:12:57 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:12:57 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
In-Reply-To: <dmicg4+n4id@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmig8p+r6rl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143699

> Christina:

> Although, doesn't Sirius sing, "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs" when 
he
> hears that he'll have company for Christmas?  It really makes one
> wonder if it's just a little funny parody that Sirius made up, or if
> it was an actual song.  <snip> However, if
> the song isn't made up by Sirius, and is an actual wizarding song,
> than it would suggest some penetration of religion into the WW.

If it's not a parody, but a real song, not to mention religious one at 
that, it makes one wonder what sort of religion it must be. I only 
hope it's not totemism, but you never know with Blacks. 

a_svirn






From agdisney at msn.com  Tue Nov 29 20:54:56 2005
From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:54:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Slytherins be ALL bad?
References: <dmgpfm+pnsj@eGroups.com> <438C5D5B.9010007@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV9316B611732A03D331F75CF4B0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143700

  Bart:
  >> This brings up a problem with the lack of a 3rd dimension in 
  much of JKR's writing. In OOP, I was rather disappointed when 
  no Slytherins joined the DA. I had figured that was a good point 
  for JKR to add a dimension to the House of Slytherin. <<

  Andie:
  I've always felt that Slytherins were NOT invited, told about, or 
  otherwise let in on the DA. 
  From HRH's POV there isn't a Slytherin that could be trusted and 
  since the Slytherins joined up with Umbridge as her Inquisition 
  Squad how can you blame them.









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 29 21:21:34 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:21:34 -0000
Subject: Universitality of Harry Potter
In-Reply-To: <00d301c5f507$be9b6b80$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmigou+c01g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143701

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at m...> wrote:
>
> abhikush wrote:
> > I was also wondering
> > if there are other religions in the wizard world besides 
> > Christianity.I would like to know the views of others in the 
> > group.
 
> Miles:
> I think, the answer to this can lead us to a general question. As 
> far as I remember, there is not a single piece of any specific 
> religion mentioned concerning the entire Harry Potter series. We  
> can assume, that there is a more or less Christian background 
> within the British wizard community. But we learn about wizards
> in Uganda, Africa in general and all over the world, so we can 
> assume other religious backgrounds for wizards e.g. in India, 
> Arabia, or Australia. Rowling does not mention the role of religion 
> in wizards' world, but she deals with basic ethical questions, 
> which matter in any religion as well as for atheists, agnostics 
> a.s.o. 

> I do not know whether this undetermined position towards religious 
> aspects is taken intentionally by Rowling. We could discuss this, 
> there are some hints in interviews. But the outcome of this 
> position is a big part of the "mystery" about the world wide 
> success of Harry Potter. You do not need much religious background 
> to understand the questions which are important in the story. It is 
> about good and bad, about love and hatred, about to be true or 
> untruthful, about friendship and care. To understand this, you have 
> to be a human being - not more.

Geoff:
(I have judiciously snipped Miles' interesting observations, mainly 
to shorten the length of the reply post. I hope I haven't removed 
anything germane to my argument).

One or two points about this which come to mind are JKR's comments 
about her faith and cultural considerations.

I believe that she is in an analogous position to JRR Tolkien who 
apparently took a similar undetermined position towards religion 
despite his deep Christian faith. There is a slight difference in that
LOTR was placed historically in a lost pre-Christian age. But if you 
read it, you can see many elements of Christian belief in it as I can 
in the HP books. Some of you will say that these beliefs are 
universal but, speaking personally as an evangelical Christian, I 
would say that these are placed in our conscience by God himself. 
Which is why readers from other faiths and backgrounds can feel that 
they are on familiar (yet strange?) ground.

Miles: 
> There are some cultural details that distinct Harry Potter as an 
> English boy and his sorrounding as British/Irish (the Weasleys are 
> surely from Ireland;) ). I do frown reading about kidney pie, 
> certainly. And a reader from an Islamic country or a Jew may be 
> disgusted at people eating pork. But these details are not decisive 
> for the whole story, they are just folklore. The core of the story 
> is universal.

Geoff:
You may frown about kidney pie or pork but these are not "just 
folklore". Remember that this story is set against the backdrop of a 
British school and British culture. The pupils at Hogwarts are varied 
in their likes and dislikes and are very reminiscent of any 
heterogeneous group from the Home Nations in their attitudes, 
behaviour and habits. BTW, I do not see the Weasleys as Irish. Seamus 
Finnigan is very much the Irishman among them. If I read a story set 
in another culture, I accept the cultural differences for what they 
are although I may hang on to those which parallel by own British 
ideas in order to keep a sense of familiarity.

Miles:
> There is something else making Harry Potter universal: We see Harry 
> entering a new world, which is only slightly similar to the world 
> we all know, and merely on some points connected to it. The 
> wizarding world is new to us - a reader from India would have to 
> explore it only slightly more than a reader from Britain to 
> understand it.

Geoff:
This is true of many stories of adventure and quest. As you suggest, 
the core story of Harry could be that of a growing boy in many other 
lands. It is the juxtapositioning of this with his Englishness that 
makes the story similar to others and yet uniquely fascinating. 
Referring back, this is also true of LOTR, because the relationship 
between Frodo and Sam is very much that of two English people, one 
more middle class than the other reflecting the situation of the 
early 20th century, the time when Tolkien was first working on his 
books.






From rh64643 at appstate.edu  Tue Nov 29 21:20:41 2005
From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:20:41 -0000
Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding
In-Reply-To: <dmi554+b4mk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmign9+qteg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143702

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "agdisney" <agdisney at m...> wrote:
>
> This has been in the back of my mind for a while, so I'll throw it out 
> & see how quick it will be torn apart.
> 
> We can assume that Mrs. Figg is not really Mrs. Figg due to the 
> comments that her house smells like cabbage which is probably a 
> constant supply of poly juice potion.
  
 I have heard this theory before, and it may very well be true.
However, doesnt it say in GOF, that the Weasley's tents smell the same
way that Mrs. Figgs' house does? It may be a smell that wizarding
dwellings, disguised as muggle dwellings take on. That could be wrong,
but it seems a lot of things smell like polyjuice potion in the WW. I
do agree with you however, that Regulus may well be alive.
 truthbeauty1








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 29 21:32:50 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:32:50 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
In-Reply-To: <dmig8p+r6rl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmihe2+6nmj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143703

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
>
Christina: 
> > Although, doesn't Sirius sing, "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs" when 
> he
> > hears that he'll have company for Christmas?  It really makes one
> > wonder if it's just a little funny parody that Sirius made up, or if
> > it was an actual song.  <snip> However, if
> > the song isn't made up by Sirius, and is an actual wizarding song,
> > than it would suggest some penetration of religion into the WW.

a_svirn:
> If it's not a parody, but a real song, not to mention religious one 
at 
> that, it makes one wonder what sort of religion it must be. I only 
> hope it's not totemism, but you never know with Blacks. 

Geoff:
I suspect a parody. There is (or was) a well-known funny version 
of "While Shepherds watched their flocks by night" which was often 
sung - even by older folk (without intending any disrespect or 
annoyance)- for a laugh.






From schumar1999 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 21:40:12 2005
From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:40:12 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmi2ld+scos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmihrs+lhvi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143704

Sydney wrote: <Snip> I love Hagrid to pieces, but saying what happened
was Malfoy's fault doesn't stand up. If I put a 13-year-old with no
experience up on a dangerous horse, and rattled off a list of
instructions, and the kid got bucked off for not managing the reins
exactly right-- that is MY fault, not his, and few parents or courts
of law would disagree.


Marianne S:
The thing is, while Hagrid may have been a bit over-eager to start
things off with a bang, he was able to model for the students and
the class had already witnessed how to follow the hippogriff
 directions properly. Draco DELIBERATELY CHOSE to not follow those
directions. I have no doubt that Draco did fully understand the
directions, but he either thought he was above them or that Hagrid 
was exaggerating. When he "painfully" discovered that Hagrid was
correct with his directions, Draco's pain was probably more on his
pride than actual physical pain (though he seems a bit of a "wuss"
in my opinion, and he was able to milk it in order
to get Hagrid and Buckbeak punished, get people to do his work in
potions,  and get himself and his team out of a quidditch match 
simply to inconvenience everyone.  






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 21:43:37 2005
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:43:37 -0000
Subject: The Hidden Key to Harry Potter (Was Four Books)
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAgIiqBomqx0ukQ2W315eiaAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dmii29+eisn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143705

"Bruce Alan Wilson" asked whether anyone had read specifically four 
books listed in the thread starting post.

I have read none of them, however I did read some years ago (prior 
to OotP) "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter" by John Granger, one of 
the authors on Bruce's list. I take it this was an earlier 
incarnation of the book mentioned by Bruce.

The basic thesis of the Hidden Key is that the Harry Potter series 
is a Christian series of books with an important message to those of 
that faith. Somewhat in the manner of Tolkien and Lewis in fact and 
there are strong parallels drawn by Mr. Granger with the Middle 
Earth novels and the Narnia Chronicles.

As with many analysyts Mr. Granger appears to have a propensity for 
over interpretation, but his basic theory is sound and argued 
convincingly.

That Mr. Granger declares himself to be a strong believer himself is 
a credit to him and it is from that viewpoint that he argues his 
case. The danger with this approach is that he starts with pre-
conceptions about how the HP books are formulated and he has little 
evidence, other than to say that JKR is herself a Christian, to 
support his thesis.

I am well aware of the arguments that the HP books are in some way 
rather moral and have strong underlying values in them. That they 
appeal to a broad spectrum of races and religions is no mistake as 
there are many elements of several religions and what are often 
described as pre-religions (mythology).

In all the major religions there is conflict between good and evil 
and figures who are notorious on both sides (think of the multiple 
names of God and the Devil as examples).

My conclusion would be to suggest that rather than take other's 
views on the HP books one should form one's own opinion.

Goddlefrood (hoping this makes sense to list members)







From schumar1999 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 21:54:12 2005
From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:54:12 -0000
Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding
In-Reply-To: <dmi554+b4mk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmiim4+kfpq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143706

Andie Wrote: <snip> 
Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she is?
Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg? It could be that he
isn't allowed to use magic because it would blow his cover? Maybe he
is only waiting for Harry to turn 17 & then he will come out of hiding
to help Harry with the horcruxes.

Marianne S.:
While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12 Grimmauld
Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if Regulus was alive in 
any shape or form. 







From Sherry at PebTech.net  Tue Nov 29 22:08:51 2005
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:08:51 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
In-Reply-To: <dmicg4+n4id@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmijhj+ci5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143707

> Christina:
> 
> As for the celebration of Christmas, I have a feeling it is celebrated
> in the wizarding world as a cultural/commercial holiday rather than a
> religious one.  

Amontillada:
I agree. Like you, I don't know anything about the cultural/public
atmosphere of the Christmas season in the UK. But I do know that
British (and hence Anglo-American) traditions of the Christmas seasons
developed from Midwinter traditions as well as Christian religious
observations.  Many aspects of the Christmas festival in the Potter
books are part of this midwinter tradition--the feast, for example.

Christina: 
> Although, doesn't Sirius sing, "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs" when he
> hears that he'll have company for Christmas?  It really makes one
> wonder if it's just a little funny parody that Sirius made up, or if
> it was an actual song.

Amontillada:
Perhaps somehing that he heard during his youth; or, as you speculate,
it might be his own parody to the traditional English carol "God Rest
Ye Merry Gentlemen." If nothing else, he might have overheard some
Muggles singing that as they walked through Grimmauld Place (not
seeing the Black house, of course).

In any case, this detail is important simply as a sign of how much
Sirius has cheered up when Harry and the Weazleys decide to stay with
him over Christmas.

Sherry






From ornawn at 013.net  Tue Nov 29 22:14:10 2005
From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:14:10 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
Message-ID: <dmijri+i7ss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143708

>Magpie:

>Sorry, but I can't ever let this pass. It was not *entirely* 
Malfoy's
>fault. Hagrid was irresponsible in that class from the beginning, 
and >that a
>boy got hurt was no surprise. <snip> but I can't believe
>anyone would blame that situation *entirely* on the kid if this 
were >the real world.

Orna:
But we are not in the real world ? it's WW. I'm not saying Hagrid 
isn't a bit irresponsible, but ? but, although Malfoy got hurt ? 
they have very good healing skills, which mean that we have to look 
at those injuries from that perspective. 
I mean ? it is quite usual for teachers to endanger students with 
dangerous plants, potions, Dark creatures. Not to mention Snape 
conjuring a snake for Harry in CoS, Moody imperiusing his class, 
Quidditch being a rather dangerous game. Detention in the forbidden 
forest is encouraged by Filch. Pupils getting scattered, while 
practicing apparation. (And that's without counting Umbridge's 
detentions, which are counted as sadistic even in the WW).
Just to add - in the real world Harry would have been certainly 
expelled and perhaps imprisoned for his Sectumsempra curse on Malfoy.

Not to mention the triwizards-tournament in GoF.

So, according to these standards, presenting pupils, who fly 
broomsticks and treat dangerous plants, boggarts etc, with a flying 
horse - is quite in order. And even his neglect of carefulness ? 
isn't as bad as it looks from our muggle point of view. I mean ? in 
the muggle world, a neglect of carefulness, which would cause a 
minor injury, which is mended in a few minutes, wouldn't be OK, but 
wouldn't be considered grave, either. 

Having said that, I agree, that Hagrid, is quite reckless and 
ignorant of dangers ? not only for his pupils, but also for himself. 
I imagine that that's how he learned to deal with most of the 
dangerous creatures, being not afraid, and trusting them basically. 
In a way, he suddenly reminds me a bit of DD ? a little bit too 
trusting and giving dangerous creatures their chance, but also 
perhaps endangering people in this way. And himself, being very very 
skilled in handling those dangerous creatures. 

Orna 







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 22:40:04 2005
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:40:04 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmihrs+lhvi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmilc4+pm4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143709


> Marianne S:
> The thing is, while Hagrid may have been a bit over-eager to start
> things off with a bang, he was able to model for the students and
> the class had already witnessed how to follow the hippogriff
>  directions properly. Draco DELIBERATELY CHOSE to not follow those
> directions. 

Draco didn't choose not to follow the directions;  he wasn't paying
attention to what Hagrid was saying.  Careless, no doubt, but if YOUR
child was clawed by a giant animal, would you honestly be on the side
of the guy who flung him into the corral with it?  Draco was
whispering with his friends;  is this an extraordinarily unusual
activity in a class of thirteen-year-olds?  Shouldn't Hagrid have
repeated the directions several times if not everyone was listening? 
Snape at least writes his instructions down on a blackboard.

I could give someone quite clear directions on how to handle a horse
that needs sensitive handling; I still woudn't throw a kid up into the
saddle and tell them just not to jerk the reins. The point is, as
"Fantastic Beasts" points out in the hippogryph entry, large animals
that need sensitive handling should be handled only by experienced
persons, because making an error is so easy and has such damaging
consequences.  As a pilot friend of mine once told me, flying a plane
isn't difficult, you just can't make any mistakes!  Is hippogryph
handing that straightforward anyways?  What do they construe as an
insult?  Draco was slashed in the first few minutes of class, which
was then halted;  a dozen kids messing around with hippogryphs for a
whole hour without a mishap... I dunno.

I'm not saying that Draco wasn't responsible at all;  but the start of
this thread was, I believe, the assertion that he bore ALL the blame.
 Hagrid's classes are an accident waiting to happen;  that one did
happen to a kid that's not very pleasant doesn't mean there was
nothing wrong with the class.

-- Sydney, who isn't a riding instructor or anything, but has signed
enough giant liability forms to know a thing or two 







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 22:44:24 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:44:24 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmihrs+lhvi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmilk8+auji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143710

> >>Marianne S:
> The thing is, while Hagrid may have been a bit over-eager to start
> things off with a bang, he was able to model for the students and
> the class had already witnessed how to follow the hippogriff
> directions properly. Draco DELIBERATELY CHOSE to not follow those
> directions. I have no doubt that Draco did fully understand the
> directions, but he either thought he was above them or that Hagrid 
> was exaggerating.

Betsy Hp:
But you're *completely* ignoring canon here.  Hagrid does *not* 
model how to best interact with a hippogriff for the class.  He 
rattles off the rules of behavior quite quickly and apparently off 
the top of his head.  He doesn't repeat anything, nor does he quiz 
the class to make sure they've got it.  And the text is *incredibly* 
clear that Draco misses the "don't insult a hippogriff" line.

" 'Don't never insult one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh do.'
Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle weren't listening..." (PoA scholastic 
hardback p.114)

After Hagrid's very brief, and incomplete (the not blinking thing), 
outline on how to approach this highly dangerous animal, Harry is 
brought in for a dry run.  Hagrid stays with Harry and "quietly" 
gives him further instructions. (ibid p.115)  So it's doubtful the 
class even heard Hagrid's words to Harry.

Then, in an unbelivably stupid bit of behavior, Hagrid sets the 
entire class loose on a *dozen* hippogriffs. So (to take Sydney's 
horse analogy and run with it) Hagrid did the equivilent of 
introducing children, who'd never interacted with horses before, to 
twelve highblooded racing horses and letting them go.  Frankly, 
Hagrid is darn lucky Buckbeack's distress didn't affect the other 
hippogriffs. 

> >>Marianne S.
> When he "painfully" discovered that Hagrid was correct with his   
> directions, Draco's pain was probably more on his pride than      
> actual physical pain (though he seems a bit of a "wuss" in my     
> opinion, and he was able to milk it in order to get Hagrid and    
> Buckbeak punished, get people to do his work in potions,  and get 
> himself and his team out of a quidditch match simply to            
> inconvenience everyone.

Betsy Hp:
Any injury that ends in blood spray strikes me a fairly painful.  I 
can believe that Malfoy later milked the injury, but shrieking that 
one is dying is certainly not a way to win back wounded pride.  If 
anything, I'd say Malfoy reacted out of honest pain and fear, hence 
his rather unmanly reaction.

As to the quidditch match, that was Slytherin strategy, IMO.  Wood 
had trained his team to meet Slytherin and their sudden pull out 
threatened the Gryffindors' game.  So the "inconvenience" was not on 
Slytherin's side.

Hagrid has a wonderful heart, and he gives Harry a type of support 
no one else can.  But he had a horrible start as a teacher.  It's 
quite telling, I think, that there will be no NEWT students for CoMC 
in Harry's year.

Betsy Hp






From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 22:49:44 2005
From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:49:44 -0000
Subject: Universitality of Harry Potter
In-Reply-To: <dmigou+c01g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmilu8+6gd1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143711

Miles:
> There are some cultural details that distinct Harry Potter as an
> English boy and his sorrounding as British/Irish (the Weasleys are
> surely from Ireland;) ). 

I must correct you on this - the Weasleys are in no way Irish! (If
they were, the twins would refer to Percy as "himself." So would most
of the other characters, come to that.) Their speech is marked as
English, with the children referring to "my mum and dad," as opposed
to Seamus, who speaks of "me man and da." Another note: red hair is
actually rare in Ireland and much commoner in Scotland, and even in
England. The confusion comes from the influx of "Scots-Irish" or
"Ulster Scots" immigrants to North America. They were about as Irish
as they were Mongolian, and the name stuck. A lot of them were
red-haired - more than the other European immigrant groups of the
eighteenth century - hence the association.

-hekatesheadband 
(The screen name is a piddling little classical allusion, not a pagan
one, just for reference.;)






From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 22:54:29 2005
From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:54:29 -0000
Subject: Universitality of Harry Potter
In-Reply-To: <dmilu8+6gd1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmim75+vbh6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143712

<Seamus, who speaks of "me man and da.">

Erm, that should have been "mam," not "man." Silly fingers!

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hekatesheadband"
<sophiapriskilla at y...> wrote:
>
> Miles:
> > There are some cultural details that distinct Harry Potter as an
> > English boy and his sorrounding as British/Irish (the Weasleys are
> > surely from Ireland;) ). 
> 
> I must correct you on this - the Weasleys are in no way Irish! (If
> they were, the twins would refer to Percy as "himself." So would most
> of the other characters, come to that.) Their speech is marked as
> English, with the children referring to "my mum and dad," as opposed
> to Seamus, who speaks of "me man and da." Another note: red hair is
> actually rare in Ireland and much commoner in Scotland, and even in
> England. The confusion comes from the influx of "Scots-Irish" or
> "Ulster Scots" immigrants to North America. They were about as Irish
> as they were Mongolian, and the name stuck. A lot of them were
> red-haired - more than the other European immigrant groups of the
> eighteenth century - hence the association.
> 
> -hekatesheadband 
> (The screen name is a piddling little classical allusion, not a pagan
> one, just for reference.;)
>







From womyn_power_2004 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 21:50:05 2005
From: womyn_power_2004 at yahoo.com (womyn_power_2004)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:50:05 -0000
Subject: theories....
Message-ID: <dmiied+gde3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143713

In OotP we see how dead headmasters and mistresses can still 
communicate to the living from their photographs and how they can 
visit their own photograph. Phineas Nigellus visits his other 
picture in the Black family mansion, and when Arthur Weasley is 
injured we have a witch from the Mungos who informs Dumbledore what 
is happening there. 
In SS Dumbledore is the first picture Harry sees on Hogwarts express 
when he unwraps his first ever-chocolate frog. Later in OotP, while 
updating Harry on the events while he spends an unhappy month at the 
Dursely's he is informed of how Dumbledore has been stripped of all 
his posts and Fred jokes that Dumbledore is happy as long as they 
don't take his picture away from the chocolate frog cards. 
Could Dumbledore guide Harry from his picture (chocolate frog card)? 
And help Harry find the other horcruxes and destroy them and finally 
Voldemort himself?

In HBP we find that Ollivander is missing
.. there is no positive 
news that he is been killed. In GoF Harry and Voldemort couldn't 
fight each other 
.  ThePriori Incantatem takes effect, though that 
saves Harry then. Is Voldemort making sure that Harry doesn't use 
that again to escape him when they have their final confrontation in 
the end of Book 7?  Could the death eaters have taken him to make 
another wand so that they could fight each other? Though it may be 
argued that the wand chooses the wizard and that since the wand with 
Fawkes's feather chose Voldemort years and years ago the new wand 
may have to be made of the same stuff, there is perhaps more to 
magic (esp wand making) than that which meets the eye. Ollivander 
will perhaps have to push his limits before he comes up with a wand 
that satisfies Voldemort and that doesn't share its core with Harry. 

womyn_power







From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Tue Nov 29 23:30:35 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:30:35 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <1238454421.20051128001600@web.de>
Message-ID: <dmioar+qkq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143714

Caro wrote:
>

> A spinner of course could be a liar. But he could also be somebody 
who
> spinns string. So it could also be the sealment of the end of the one
> who spinns something. For example countermeasures or means of
> information. Then this spinner, whose end is sealed is Dumbledore. If
> so, then the title of the chapter says very little about Snape.
> 
> What is your opinion about this idea?
> 
> Yours Caro
>

Lucianam answers:

Thanks, I didn't know 'spinner' could mean a liar (I'm not a native 
english speaker, so I miss some things).

That would be very interesting, if Snape is 'spinning' his web of 
lies, who is he trying to fool? If he's fooling Bellatrix in Spinner's 
End, he could be on the right side.

Your idea of the spinner ending in Dumbledore's death is good, I 
think, and very much to JKR's tastes. She likes her double meaning, 
doesn't she?

I had never thought the title of this chapter was meaningful, thanks 
for the clue!

Lucianam






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 23:51:24 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:51:24 -0000
Subject: Not all killing is murder - separation from Soul
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAYCyNNgh3NkKksCIGaAiHPQEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dmiphs+g4ei@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143715

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson"
<bawilson at c...> wrote:
>
> Ophelia writes:
> 
> If Grindewald was killed, the matter deepens. Because we are 
> told that killing fractures the soul, it would clarify some 
> of the moral questions roaming the list lately concerning 
> Harry's insistence to take as many DE's down as he can in HBP 
> (sorry, I don't have the source material readily available).
> 
> 
> I respond:
> 
> IIRC, the fracturing of the soul is MURDER, not killing. Not 
> every killing is murder. ... That is why the law recognizes 
> other terms for killing than murder---manslaughter 
> (voluntary or involuntary), homicide (justifiable, negligent, 
> depraved indifference)---and different degrees of murder--
> capital murder, first degree murder, second degree murder.
> 
> Bruce Wilson
>

bboyminn:

You have a valid point, but when we are talking about the soul, are we
dealing with legal issues or spiritual issues? 

First, I think everyone is making too big a point of killing/murdering
tearing the soul. The real heinous crime is not so much the 'causing
of death' as it is the subsequent separation of the torn soul from the
rest of the soul and from the body. It is this separation from the
soul piece that has caused Voldemort to physically and morally
deteriorate to such an extreme. I believe our real emphasis should be
on separation from soul pieces and not on the creation of the soul
pieces themselves.

I personally believe that virtually every causing of the death of
another person damages the soul. Soldiers in wartime are forced to do
things, like kill people, that go against everything they believe;
that violates them to their very core. 

But they do it. They do it partly because they don't want to die. When
places in a 'kill or be killed' situation, most of us choose our own
life over that of others. Keep in mind that I'm talking about soldiers
in war. Those solidiers do themselves spiritual damage. If you don't
believe me, just ask them. 

>From another perspective, soldiers do what they do because they know,
or at least believe, they are acting for a great good. They believe
that the evil they fight is worse than the evil they commit. 

Further, as a society, knowing that war is an evil thing that sadly
sometimes must be done, we forgive them for their actions as long as
those actions don't stray to far into the realm of heartless cold
calculated evil. Of course, the distinction I am making here is the
difference between normal acts of war and war crimes; in a sense,
crimes against humanity.

However, while that soldier's soul may be damaged by his actions, his
soul, and all of his soul, is still there with him. In time, the
damage may heal, or at least in some spiritual way, be resolved. 

If that soldier were to remove the damaged pieces of soul from
himself, he would gradually lose his humanity. He would no longer be
able to make rational and reasonable spiritual choices. He could make
the distinction of 'crimes against humanity' because he would no
longer be able to recognise humanity. This is exactly the circumstance
we see Voldemort in; in a sense, he has traded his humanity for
immortality.

So, while all causing of death damages the soul, even accidental
death, all 'causing of death' does not damage the soul equally. Minor
damage can be repaired, probably with scars, but none the less
repaired. However, cold, uncaring, unfeeling, heartless, calculated,
unconscionable murder damages the soul severly, and this damage is
only repaired under the most extreme and unusual circumstances, and
even when repaired, the scaring is deep and the damage will always
remain. 

So, as long as the soul and its damaged pieces remain together, there
is hope for redemption, salvation, and healing. Once you have
separated yourself from your soul, or your soul pieces, that healing
and redemption can never take place. That is why I say, that the
separation of soul is of far greater consequence, both in life and in
this story, that the mere damage to the soul. 

So, while I actually agree with your primary point, that not all
killing is murder, I think we are placing the emphasis on the wrong
point. The true moral and spiritual crime against humanity, the true
unforgivable crime, is separating oneself from his soul.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 30 00:10:21 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:10:21 -0000
Subject: Harry's Army
Message-ID: <dmiqld+qlcj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143716

Harry has made quite a few human and creature allies over the years, 
as well as acquiring enchanted objects which haven't made an 
appearance yet. I wonder who and what will reappear at a pivotal 
moment in Book 7? The list includes mainly those 
people/creatures/items we haven't seen actively help Harry yet, but 
seem poised to do so.

Wizards:
1) Wormtail--not an ally, but the life debt and all.
2) Hagrid--maybe his moment was at Godric's Hollow? It just occurred 
to me from the other threads at the moment Hagrid hasn't exactly 
*helped* Harry in a pinch, even though he's been emotionally 
supportive and nurturing. Maybe that's his main role in the end.
3) Mad-Eye--if nothing else he might have information about 
Dumbledore since they were old friends.
4) Charlie and/or Bill--both with unusal skills that haven't been 
utilized yet.
5) Krum--we know he'll be back from JKR and he's not under the thumb 
of Karkaroff anymore. Probably will play on one of the UK Quidditch 
teams and help out along the way?

Creatures:
1) Norbert--an eponymous chapter in the first book only to 
disappear? Hmmmm....
2) Merpeople--chieftess impressed by Harry in the second task and 
loyal to Dumbledore.
3) Grawp--has technically already helped Harry, so maybe we'll get a 
pass on him in book 7. :-)

Objects:
1) Sirius' motorcycle, now belonging to Harry and promised to be 
back.
2) Dobby's gifts, either the socks or portrait of Harry--I hope one 
of these returns and Dobby is surprised to find out Harry didn't 
realize they had powers.
3) Mirrors--set to return according to JKR.

Not to mention all the people/creatures/objects already allied with 
Harry who have helped along the way so far! Harry may be going 
forward alone, but I think his back is covered<g>.

Jen, hoping for a united front rather than the typical solo hero's 
journey. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 00:26:39 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:26:39 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmilk8+auji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmirjv+7htf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143718


> Betsy Hp:
 And the text is *incredibly* 
> clear that Draco misses the "don't insult a hippogriff" line.
> 
> " 'Don't never insult one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh 
do.'
> Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle weren't listening..." (PoA scholastic 
> hardback p.114)

You are right: Draco misses do-not-insult part completely. Not 
surprising, really, since that's the source of his problems not only 
where hippogriffs are concerned. It's hardly fair to blame Hagrid 
for that, however. 

Here is the canon: 

"Now, firs' thing yeh gotta know abou' hippogriffs is, they're 
proud," said Hagrid. "Easily offended, hippogriffs are. Don't never 
insult one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh do."

You can hardly make the matter plainer than that, now, can you? 

a_svirn







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 30 00:55:29 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:55:29 -0000
Subject: Christmas & Harry Potter...
In-Reply-To: <dmijhj+ci5n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmita1+5gvg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143719

Christina:
> > 
> > As for the celebration of Christmas, I have a feeling it is 
celebrated
> > in the wizarding world as a cultural/commercial holiday rather 
than a
> > religious one.  

Amontillada:
> I agree. Like you, I don't know anything about the cultural/public
> atmosphere of the Christmas season in the UK. But I do know that
> British (and hence Anglo-American) traditions of the Christmas 
seasons
> developed from Midwinter traditions as well as Christian religious
> observations.

Ceridwen:
I think I'll have to go along with the suggestion at the Red Hen 
site.  The WW has closed itself off from the Muggle world for no more 
than a few hundred years, not a long time in a society where 
Dumbledore lives to be nearly 160, and one of the people who tested 
him in his O.W.L.s is still testing students.  Before the split, they 
probably shared certain cultural things in common with their Muggle 
neighbors, including religion...  Well, as long as the religion 
wasn't making witches and wizards the enemy du jour.  I'd expect that 
it's the same in every country, region and culture where the WW 
exists.  Someone else said the same thing, so at least I don't feel 
lonely!  Once the WW has closed itself culturally from the Muggle 
world, then perhaps other traditions have developed.

Christina: 
> > Although, doesn't Sirius sing, "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs"
> > when he hears that he'll have company for Christmas?

Amontillada:
> Perhaps somehing that he heard during his youth; or, as you 
speculate,
> it might be his own parody to the traditional English carol "God 
Rest
> Ye Merry Gentlemen." If nothing else, he might have overheard some
> Muggles singing that as they walked through Grimmauld Place (not
> seeing the Black house, of course).

Ceridwen:
Recently, fun has been poked at a church in Wales which has replaced 
the word 'Gentlemen' with the word 'Persons' (or was it 'People'?).  
Most reports I heard and read said the song is five hundred years 
old.  If so, it was probably around before the Acts of Secrecy, or 
newly out around that time, and could have come into the WW as they 
seperated from their Muggle neighbors.  For sure, the song was out in 
1770, when it appeared in a collection of Christmas songs - link to 
info: 
http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/Notes_On_Car
ols/god_rest_you_merry_notes.htm

Ceridwen, who likes that carol, it's fun to sing.






From AllieS426 at aol.com  Wed Nov 30 01:40:40 2005
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:40:40 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmilk8+auji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmivuo+qnr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143720

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
>
> > >>Marianne S:
> > The thing is, while Hagrid may have been a bit over-eager to 
start
> > things off with a bang, he was able to model for the students and
> > the class had already witnessed how to follow the hippogriff
> > directions properly. Draco DELIBERATELY CHOSE to not follow those
> > directions. I have no doubt that Draco did fully understand the
> > directions, but he either thought he was above them or that 
Hagrid 
> > was exaggerating.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But you're *completely* ignoring canon here.  Hagrid does *not* 
> model how to best interact with a hippogriff for the class.  He 
> rattles off the rules of behavior quite quickly and apparently off 
> the top of his head.  He doesn't repeat anything, nor does he quiz 
> the class to make sure they've got it.  And the text is 
*incredibly* 
> clear that Draco misses the "don't insult a hippogriff" line.
> 

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the "Blast-Ended Skrewts" yet.  
I can't quote the canon, as all of my books are packed in boxes, but 
I believe many of the children were at least singed by them, 
including Harry and Dean, who certainly WERE paying attention.  I 
honestly don't know why Dumbledore allows Hagrid to continue 
teaching.  On the other hand, Harry and his friends all achieved OWL 
in Care of Magical Creatures, so they must be learning something, 
even if Hagrid is completely irresponsible.  

Allie







From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 30 01:22:45 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:22:45 -0500
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <dmhcad+klb2@eGroups.com>
References: <dmhcad+klb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438CFEE5.4080804@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143721

amiabledorsai wrote:
> Th Ministry in general is one of the great hanging threads in the
> whole series.  Harry's view of it has gotten progressively worse in
> each book, starting with Hagrid's genial contempt for Fudge in book
> one and ending with Harry's dismissal of Scrimgeour in book 6.  I
> think Jo is setting up a big shakeup for book 7.  

Bart:
	And are there any other magical governing bodies? What are they doing 
about the situation? If not, then why aren't non-British wizards or 
witches involved in the Ministry of Magic?

	Bart







From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Wed Nov 30 01:30:24 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:30:24 +0100
Subject: Universitality of Harry Potter - and a bit about Mrs Figg
References: <dmigou+c01g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01bc01c5f54d$a393da70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143722

Geoff wrote:
> (I have judiciously snipped Miles' interesting observations, mainly
> to shorten the length of the reply post. I hope I haven't removed
> anything germane to my argument).

Miles: You haven't. Actually, your sentences added two words to my
vocabulary, thank you ;).

Geoff wrote:
>  if you
> read it, you can see many elements of Christian belief in it as I can
> in the HP books. Some of you will say that these beliefs are
> universal but, speaking personally as an evangelical Christian, I
> would say that these are placed in our conscience by God himself.

Miles:
 I decided not to do describe it in that way (as a Roman Catholic),
because I wanted to take all readers along. Personally, I would join your
argument. But my argumentation is intact with the phenomenological
statement, which is not bound to the personal belief of the list members, so
IMO it is preferable - especially when dealing with Harry Potter as a global
bestseller. Ok, this is kind of meta discussion.

> Geoff:
> You may frown about kidney pie or pork but these are not "just
> folklore". Remember that this story is set against the backdrop of a
> British school and British culture. The pupils at Hogwarts are varied
> in their likes and dislikes and are very reminiscent of any
> heterogeneous group from the Home Nations in their attitudes,
> behaviour and habits. BTW, I do not see the Weasleys as Irish.

hekatesheadband wrote:
> I must correct you on this - the Weasleys are in no way Irish!

Miles: 
I must apologize to all people from Britain and Ireland. My small
remark obviously stirred up a hornet's nest - I did not think about it, and
worse, my knowledge of Irish and British peculiarities is deplorable
limited. Si tacuisses...
Your reactions however show, that my argument was not clear enough. I did
not intend to downplay the cultural differences of people, not in general
and not in Hogwarts.
Speaking of "just folklore" is not at all dismissive. Maybe the usage of the
word folklore is different in English and German, but in German it is a more
or less neutral term, not indicating unimportance. Folklore is a special
form of culture, local and mostly oral, and it is different from the kind of
culture that deals with religion and ethics. To stay in my own country (on
firm ground for me), the local folklore of the area I live in has nothing
(nothing!) to do with lederhosen and blasmusik, and to be identified with
that Bavarian culture is close to an insult for most Germans, who are not
from Bavaria.
But this is not important for the questions that matter in the Harry Potter
series. It would work with a wizards' school in Germany, in the US or in
Chile. But Rowling is British, so she wrote about Harry Potter from Surrey.
It would be written differently, surely with a different humour, Hogwarts
would be less British.
But the questions of friendship, love, courage, truth, right or wrong, they
would be the same.

> Geoff:
> As you suggest,
> the core story of Harry could be that of a growing boy in many other
> lands. It is the juxtapositioning of this with his Englishness that
> makes the story similar to others and yet uniquely fascinating.

Miles:
(Third new word - I love this list ;) ). I suppose, that literary
scholarship could find typical features of English literature in Rowling's
work. But I'm just a reader, enjoying British folklore and humour in the
books, but feeling that they are not decisive for the story told.

Miles, who will never ever make a remark about characteristics he does not
know firsthand






From va32h at comcast.net  Wed Nov 30 02:04:11 2005
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:04:11 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmivuo+qnr8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmj1ar+dj6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143723

AllieS426  wrote:
>  I  honestly don't know why Dumbledore allows Hagrid to continue 
> teaching.  On the other hand, Harry and his friends all achieved OWL 
> in Care of Magical Creatures, so they must be learning something, 
> even if Hagrid is completely irresponsible.  

va32h: 
When Dumbledore introduces Hagrid as the new CoMC teacher, he 
remarks that the previous teacher, Professor Kettleburn, has 
retired "to enjoy the use of his remaining limbs". PoA pg 93.

This suggest to me that Care of Magical Creatures has always been a 
dangerous class, and interacting with magical creatures inherently 
risky. Or perhaps all CoMC instructors are careless about safety. Or 
safety isn't too much of a concern in a magical world where injuries 
are healed rather quickly and painlessly. 

Quidditch is extremely dangerous too - why didn't Madam Hooch do 
something about the rogue bludger that was chasing after Harry? 
Students have been engorged in Potions class, and been Imperius'd in 
DADA (Which Dumbledore assented to, even when he thought Crouch!Moody 
was Real!Moody). Students curse each other repeatedly, and cruelly. 

My own young daughter pointed out that Hogwarts was an extremely 
dangerous school to attend, since the Trio seem to round out every 
year with a nice long visit in the hospital wing. 

Applying real-life standards of safety to the magical world is always 
going to be frustrating. For me, it really reduces my enjoyment of the 
story to sidetrack myself with all the reasons this or that couldn't 
or shouldn't really happen. (I strictly speaking of my own experience 
here, to each his own). 

To bring this back to Hagrid - all of his misadventures with magical 
creatures either advance the plot, or provide humourous interludes. 
(although granted, the humorous effect may vary according to the 
reader). The Buckbeak trial and execution were essential to carrying 
off the plot of PoA. Aragog was vital for CoS. The Blast-Ended Skrewts 
seemed to me to be intended for humor's sake, the dragon had plot uses 
in PS as well as showing Hagrid's maternal side, and providing humor, 
and Grawp had his plot uses in OoTP, and may well be further useful in 
book 7. 
va32h








From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Wed Nov 30 02:20:12 2005
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:20:12 +0100
Subject: Ministry storyline, Harry's army and Mrs Figg
References: <dmhnlt+fu2n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <020901c5f554$98b2f490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 143724

Sorry, I forgot to add my remarks on Mrs Figg in my last mail, they are at
the end of this one ;).

lupinlore wrote:
> The Ministry is a hanging thread, all right.  And it hangs all the
> more prominently considering the personal factors involved, for
> instance Percy's ultimate fate and Harry's career plans.
<snip>
> If there was going to
> be a major Ministry storyline, then OOTP or HBP would have been the
> place to do it.  Now it may very well be too late to advance that
> particular plot thread, except perhaps in rapid telegraphic style

Miles:
I agree and disagree at the same time.
I agree, that to bring the storyline of the Ministry to an accurate end,
could be a major part of book 7 - too much besides all the horcruxes, the
losses for Harry to come and the final showdown.
But there is no need to do it. If Harry will succeed in his fight with
Voldemort, this will be a major earthquake for the wizarding community - and
could be a spark to start kind of revolution. This would be another story,
not to be told within Harry Potter, maybe part of the epilogue.

Jen Reese wrote:
> Harry has made quite a few human and creature allies over the years,
> as well as acquiring enchanted objects which haven't made an
> appearance yet. I wonder who and what will reappear at a pivotal
> moment in Book 7?

Miles:
There is an army that could play a role and is not in your list. There is
not only Dobby - there are (I assume) thousands of Elves. We learnt
something about them, but I am sure not all. We know, that they are
extremely powerful creatures with magical skills partly beyond the skills of
human wizards. We know, that they communicate, have a kind of underground
society not recognized by the wizards and witches. And - they know Harry
Potter. They know him to be kind and friendly to Elves. Ok, Dobby is not the
main authority at all. But we know, that Elves *do* know if they are abused,
and they appreciate a friendly attitude towards them (Hermione is not
friendly to them). I do not expect an elvish army standing on Harry's side -
but there may be unexpected help for him.

agdisney wrote:
> We can assume that Mrs. Figg is not really Mrs. Figg due to the
> comments that her house smells like cabbage which is probably a
> constant supply of poly juice potion.

Miles:
Is there any information about the smell of polyjuice potion in canon? And
isn't the smell in Mrs Figg's house cat's smell?

agdisney wrote:
> Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she is?
> Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg?  It could be that
> he
> isn't allowed to use magic because it would blow his cover?

Miles:
Very interesting idea. I can add another detail: the inside of one of the
tents the Weasley's use at the Quidditch Worldcup is identical with the
interieur of Mrs Figg's house. And Mr Weasley borrowed the tent from a
fellow witch at the Ministry (I have no quote, no English version of GoF at
hand). We can be quite sure, that this detail will be important. Maybe kind
of witness-protection programme?
But I doubt, that there will be polyjuice potion involved. To use it, "Mrs.
Figg" would have to drink it every hour, and the real Mrs Figg must be
hidden somewhere - for some 15 years.

> Marianne S.:
> While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12
> Grimmauld
> Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if Regulus was alive
> in
> any shape or form.

Miles:
We do not know the way the inherence of houses and elves is determined. So,
"legal death" could matter, even if the "dead" person is alive in reality.






From hg_skmg at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 03:10:03 2005
From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:10:03 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
In-Reply-To: <011801c5f445$d6bbcd80$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmj56b+a0ci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143725

(snipped)
Miles:
There are differences much more important than the Dark Mark. The  It 
is not difficult to fake blood, no need to use Dragon's blood. We can 
be pretty sure, that "faking human blood" is not among the 12 uses of 
Dragon's blood Dumbledore and Flamel discovered...

hg:
True, but why fake it if it's already in your pocket, maybe?  I've 
thought for a long time that it's a strong possibility that Slughorn 
took Dumbledore's place that night (except no-one died).  Even 
without a switch, if Slughorn was on the back-end of a faked death, 
he'd have that bottle on hand with little use for it other than a 
purpose such as this.

Miles:
To cast the Dark Mark is a question of seconds only, so Gibbon did 
have no reason to stay on top of the tower. There was no need for 
Rosmerta to see it before DD and Harry arrived, the only thing for 
her to do was using her coin to contact Draco when they arrived.

hg:
If you're suggesting that Rosmerta wasn't truthful when she told them 
the DM had been set minutes before they arrived, I suppose that does 
shed some doubt on the possibility of another person setting it.  But 
if we take what she says at face value, it seems too much time 
elapses before Dumbledore & Harry arrive for Gibbon to have set it -- 
it would seem to me, instead, that he saw it already set when he went 
up to the tower.


Miles:
> I agree, that he could have had a motivation to fake his death. But 
I really doubt that he had the chance to do it. To fake this death 
scene, he would have had to anticipate not only a showdown with 
Deatheaters. He was surprised that they managed to come to Hogwarts. 
I do not think this was faked surprise, because this bunch of 
murderers in his school, endangering every student - no, Dumbledore 
would never take that kind of risk. But without knowing Deatheaters 
coming to Hogwarts, how could he plan the scenario on top of the 
tower, or some similar one?

hg:
I think he did anticipate that Malfoy was poised to strike, and that 
it would be that night.  He also anticipated the need to fake his 
death, as he almost must be aware of the UV.  I don't think he'd plan 
that scenario up on the tower to play out as it did; rather, he'd 
have a loose plan and deal with the surprises (such as the DE's) as 
they came.  But I think with a year to come up with something, he'd 
find a way, and he'd choose life and continuing the struggle against 
Voldemort, over avoiding a big lie to the WW.

Miles:
And to bring in the meta killer argument: Rowling stated in 
interviews, that characters who die in her books are really dead and 
do not return.

hg:
I'm taking this out of context, but it applies to what I've said 
above: If he never died, he was never "properly dead," and thus she 
hasn't broken her own rules.

(And Miles, thank you for the feedback.)
hg.








From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 30 02:58:24 2005
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:58:24 -0500
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmioar+qkq3@eGroups.com>
References: <dmioar+qkq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <438D1550.4010305@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143726

lucianam73 wrote:
> Thanks, I didn't know 'spinner' could mean a liar (I'm not a native 
> english speaker, so I miss some things).
> 
> That would be very interesting, if Snape is 'spinning' his web of 
> lies, who is he trying to fool? If he's fooling Bellatrix in Spinner's 
> End, he could be on the right side.
> 
> Your idea of the spinner ending in Dumbledore's death is good, I 
> think, and very much to JKR's tastes. She likes her double meaning, 
> doesn't she?
> 
> I had never thought the title of this chapter was meaningful, thanks 
> for the clue!

Bart:
	I just reread the chapter. I noticed (maybe I was careless, though) 
that the name, "Spinner's End" doesn't occur within the chapter.

	In addition, "spin" can be used to telling the truth in a way as to 
make it imply something which may or may not be true. An example I often 
use is, "Joe refused to wear a tie to work, and he was fired." It's 
actually a true statement, and happened in a company I worked for. 
However, if you think that Joe was fired BECAUSE he refused to wear a 
tie to work, then you are mistaken; he was a janitor, and didn't have to 
wear a tie. He was fired for stealing equipment.

	Reread the chapter, think of Snape as loyal to the OOP, and 
concentrate, not on what Snape says, but on what Snape DOESN'T say.

	Bart






From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 04:17:15 2005
From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:17:15 -0000
Subject: Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
In-Reply-To: <dmhcn3+oqcj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmj94b+s67c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143727

I think it is very possible that Snape may help destroy the 
horcruxes in some way. I don't think that Harry will or can do it 
all by himself. Looking back at all of his encounters with Voldemort 
through the series, he never has gotten close to Voldemort without 
help. He faced him alone at the end (in both PS/SS and COS), but not 
before others helped him to that point, even doing things he could 
not do himself(Ron playing wizard chess for example). And, if you 
look at the last two times he faced Voldemort, he was not alone even 
then. In GOF he heard the Phoenix song that gave him strength, and 
in the MoM in OoP others were right there. 

I agree that it wouldn't make sense for the three kids to do in one 
year what Dumbledore could not do in several. But, as JKR implied, 
Harry knows far more than he realizes, so it remains to be seen just 
what that is. 

Snape seems like a logical person to help since he knows so much 
about the dark arts, but there is one other person I can think of 
who might be of assistance - Viktor Krum. He went to Durmstrang, 
where we were told in GOF that they are actually taught the dark 
arts. So he could have knowledge that would be useful to them, and 
his previous relationship with Hermione provides an "excuse" for 
them to get in contact with him. 


On separate matters, what reasons do we have for Hogwarts 
opening/not opening in the next book? I can't imagine it not being 
open, but the possibility it might be closed was given in HBP. 

kelleyaynn







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 30 04:19:43 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:19:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
References: <dmijri+i7ss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <028601c5f565$4b269950$4a87400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143728

Orna:
But we are not in the real world - it's WW. I'm not saying Hagrid
isn't a bit irresponsible, but - but, although Malfoy got hurt -
they have very good healing skills, which mean that we have to look
at those injuries from that perspective.
I mean - it is quite usual for teachers to endanger students with
dangerous plants, potions, Dark creatures. Not to mention Snape
conjuring a snake for Harry in CoS, Moody imperiusing his class,
Quidditch being a rather dangerous game.

Magpie:

Sure it's not like our world, and Draco's fine and Hagrid's still teaching 
and Snape maybe feeds people poison in class.  I agree with that, but it's a 
different point. This was just in answer to the idea that Hagrid has no 
responsibility for what happens in the class.  Within canon Hagrid is 
considered a particularly unreliable by students, and he does a lot of 
things that contribute to what happens the first day.

> Betsy Hp:
 And the text is *incredibly*
> clear that Draco misses the "don't insult a hippogriff" line.
>
> " 'Don't never insult one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh
do.'
> Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle weren't listening..." (PoA scholastic
> hardback p.114)

a_svirn:

Here is the canon:

"Now, firs' thing yeh gotta know abou' hippogriffs is, they're proud," said 
Hagrid. "Easily offended, hippogriffs are. Don't never insult one, 'cause it 
might be the last thing yeh do."

You can hardly make the matter plainer than that, now, can you?

Magpie:

Yup.  Starting with being heard by everyone, but even beyond that, yes.

-m 





From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 05:05:06 2005
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:05:06 -0000
Subject: Teachers at Hogwarts (was Snape, Hagrid and Animals)
In-Reply-To: <dmj1ar+dj6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmjbu2+ao8v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143729



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" <va32h at c...> wrote:
> Applying real-life standards of safety to the magical world is always 
> going to be frustrating. For me, it really reduces my enjoyment of the 
> story to sidetrack myself with all the reasons this or that couldn't 
> or shouldn't really happen. (I strictly speaking of my own experience 
> here, to each his own). 


Yah, I agree with that.  But if people are going to start piling on Snape for being a bad teacher, or mean, or whatever, there's plenty worse to pick on with Hagrid.  Snape is an EFFECTIVE teacher.  And his teaching does not imperil the very lives of his students.  Hagrid is both ineffective and dangerous.

I think Rowling once was asked about Snape, and Snape's retention at Hogwarts despite his seeming cruelty.  She said something like "there are teachers out there like Snape, and that's a lesson for Harry."

Most of the teachers at Hogwarts do reflect certain paradigms in the teaching world that any teacher would recognize.  Or any student.  

Everyone probably has a Snape in their past.  The brilliant teacher who's mean as all hell.  Everyone has a Hagrid as well, the dimwit who can't seem to do anything right.  McGonnagal, the somewhat prissy finger-wagger.  And Umbridge, the soulless toady of administration, bully, and purveyor of idiotic teaching theories that make no sense in the real world. 

And the ideal of teacherly perfection?  

Lupin.   That is, unless he stupidly forgets to take his wolfsbane and nearly kills his favorite students. 

Ha!  







From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov 30 07:05:25 2005
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:05:25 EST
Subject: Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
Message-ID: <2bf.f0f44.30bea935@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143730

 

Irene wrote:

> I'm still not sure where she will go. I can  easily see JKR writing 
> about Harry, Ron and Hermione doing it all  without any help, 
> through "sheer dumb luck". Whether she can pull it  off in a way 
> that won't be completely ridiculous, remains to be  seen.
 

Quoting JKR about the hunt for the Horcruxes (hey, could this be
the title of book 7, Harry Potter and the Hunt for the Horcruxes?
Nah. Too obvious, a bit boring, and lacks climactic punch.), Nora
wrote: 
JKR: It's not all of it. Obviously it's not all of it, but  still, 
that is the way to kill Voldemort. That's not to say it won't be  
extremely an torturous and winding journey, but that's what he's got 
to  do. Harry now knows ? well he believe he knows ? what he's facing.  
Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I don't 
want  to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, `There are four 
out there,  you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for 
Voldemort.' So that's  where he is, and that's what he's got to do.
<snip>

Julie  says:
There is something potentially very interesting JKR says above:
"Harry now knows--well, he believes he knows--what he's facing."
Hmm, so Harry *believes* he knows? In other words, some of what
he "knows" is wrong. For instance, he "knows" that Snape is evil and  
switched sides. I suspect he's wrong there, but he could be wrong
about something else, or even several something elses. 
 
Nora wrote:
Harry may not always be the absolute fastest at doing what  needs to 
be done, but he does have exceptionally valuable intuition, a kind  of 
edge that the more methodical Hermione lacks.  He won't be doing  
everything alone, but there's enough interesting possibilities with 
the  quest given that I'm not sure she'd want to pull in the deus ex 
machina 'Oh,  look, Snape already killed a few of them'.
 
Julie:
I don't expect that to happen either. What I do suspect is that once
Harry destroys the first Horcrux, he may figure out a shortcut to 
locating the others. Thus it won't be a whole book of Harry hunting
down each horcrux with equally consuming amounts of time and
effort.  And while Snape won't actually destroy any  Horcruxes,
I won't be surprised if he is instrumental in Harry locating them.
 
Leslie wrote:
> (Oh, and would not it devalue Dumbledore as a wise  and powerful 
> wizard? To be bested by three half-trained  teenagers?)


Nora wrote:
Guessing about JKR's portrayal of Dumbledore is a tricky thing, these  
days.  Given that Harry is her hero, he came into her mind first, and  
she's built everything around him, I'd say it's an inherent structure 
of  the narrative that he surpasses Dumbledore in some field, by the 
end of the  story.  He may well see things from a different 
perspective not  accessible to the older man, and thus arrive at the 
solution  needed.


Julie: 
Agreed. And I don't think it will devalue Dumbledore. It was 
Dumbledore who gave Harry much of the knowledge he needs,
about Voldemort and about the horcruxes. Additionally, it was
Dumbledore who arranged for a variety of teachers to impart  other
knowledge Harry might need, from his favorite teacher, Lupin, to
his least favorite (though perhaps ultimately most influential in
practical matters), Snape. 
 
I'd also add that while Harry may have to face and defeat 
Voldemort alone, he doesn't have to *get* there alone. He's 
already had considerable help throughout the books, and I'm
sure he'll have more help in book Seven. At which point he will 
ultimately defeat Voldemort with the one weapon that *is* his 
alone--his heart. 
 
Julie 
 









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From pcpal67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 22:02:55 2005
From: pcpal67 at yahoo.com (pcpal67)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:02:55 -0000
Subject: The Dursleys
Message-ID: <dmij6f+suli@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143731

I still wonder what the Dursley's role is in all of this.  I wonder if
Lily truly was all muggle born.  The later books continue to say she
was, but...What about Petunia?  Mrs. Dursley seems like she might be a
Squib or a witch herself.  They certianly picked somebody for the film
who looked like it.  And Dumbledore's howler letter said 'remember the
last.'  It seems like Petunia knows more about the wizarding world
than she lets on.  And remember Dobby insisting that Harry not return
to Hogwarts.  Well why is he safe at the Dursleys?  They don't love
him, even if they are blood.  So it can't love protecting him as a
counter curse like implied by Dumbledore more than once (and discussed
in other postings).  I wonder if book seven will answer all the
unanswered questions, or will it just be more excitement, and more
fodder for speculation by us fans.

pcpal67






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 30 07:44:47 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:44:47 -0000
Subject: Portraits and photographs ( was Re: theories....)
In-Reply-To: <dmiied+gde3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmjl9f+jvpg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143732

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "womyn_power_2004" 
<womyn_power_2004 at y...> wrote:

womyn_power:
> In OotP we see how dead headmasters and mistresses can still 
> communicate to the living from their photographs and how they can 
> visit their own photograph. Phineas Nigellus visits his other 
> picture in the Black family mansion, and when Arthur Weasley is 
> injured we have a witch from the Mungos who informs Dumbledore what 
> is happening there. 
> In SS Dumbledore is the first picture Harry sees on Hogwarts 
> express when he unwraps his first ever-chocolate frog. Later in 
> OotP, while updating Harry on the events while he spends an unhappy 
> month at the Dursely's he is informed of how Dumbledore has been 
> stripped of all his posts and Fred jokes that Dumbledore is happy 
> as long as they don't take his picture away from the chocolate  
> frog cards. Could Dumbledore guide Harry from his picture 
> (chocolate frog card)? And help Harry find the other horcruxes and  
> destroy them and finally Voldemort himself?

Geoff:
I think that, in the past, contributors to the group have drawn a 
distinction between portraits and photographs.

It is through the portraits that messages have been sent and 
information obtained whereas photographs, such as in those in "The 
Daily Prophet" and on the Frog Cards, seem to be similar to video 
recordings in the real world - they just replay and are not 
interactive.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 30 07:50:15 2005
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:50:15 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmioar+qkq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmjljn+rlkh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143733

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Caro wrote:
> >
> 
> > A spinner of course could be a liar. But he could also be 
somebody 
> who
> > spinns string. So it could also be the sealment of the end of the 
one
> > who spinns something. For example countermeasures or means of
> > information. Then this spinner, whose end is sealed is 
Dumbledore. If
> > so, then the title of the chapter says very little about Snape.
> > 
> > What is your opinion about this idea?
> > 
> > Yours Caro
> >
> 
Lucianam:
> Thanks, I didn't know 'spinner' could mean a liar (I'm not a native 
> english speaker, so I miss some things).
> 
> That would be very interesting, if Snape is 'spinning' his web of 
> lies, who is he trying to fool? If he's fooling Bellatrix in 
Spinner's 
> End, he could be on the right side.
> 
> Your idea of the spinner ending in Dumbledore's death is good, I 
> think, and very much to JKR's tastes. She likes her double meaning, 
> doesn't she?
> 
> I had never thought the title of this chapter was meaningful, 
thanks 
> for the clue!

Geoff:
Looking at things as a native English speaker, I have never 
heard "spinner" used as the word for a liar.

We will talk of someone "spinning a yarn" which can mean a 
storyteller - such as JKR or JRRT for example - but it can mean 
someone who is bending the truth, but only in this grammatical form, 
not as a noun.






From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov 30 04:51:43 2005
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:51:43 -0500
Subject: Hagrid as a teacher; the reading of commentaries.
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAQRnuTCcReE+pyvXJjeYrGQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 143734

"Marianne S:
The thing is, while Hagrid may have been a bit over-eager to start
things off with a bang, he was able to model for the students and
the class had already witnessed how to follow the hippogriff
 directions properly. Draco DELIBERATELY CHOSE to not follow those
directions. I have no doubt that Draco did fully understand the
directions, but he either thought he was above them or that Hagrid 
was exaggerating. When he "painfully" discovered that Hagrid was
correct with his directions, Draco's pain was probably more on his
pride than actual physical pain (though he seems a bit of a "wuss"
in my opinion, and he was able to milk it in order
to get Hagrid and Buckbeak punished, get people to do his work in
potions,  and get himself and his team out of a quidditch match 
simply to inconvenience everyone."

Bruce Wilson:
My impression is that Draco didn't think it proper that Hagrid, being not fully
human and not a fully qualified wizard, should be allowed to teach, and was
deliberately trying to sabotage his class and get him fired at least as COMC
teacher, if not as Groundskeeper. (Remember, he didn't want to serve a detention
under Hagrid; thought it 'infra dig' to be under Hagrid's authority.)  I don't
think that he ever considered that he might get seriously hurt; kids his age
often think themselves invulnerable.  He was lucky he wasn't more seriously
injured.

Goddlefrood: 

"My conclusion would be to suggest that rather than take other's 
views on the HP books one should form one's own opinion."

Bruce Wilson:
Then what is the point of reading other people's opinions on this and kindred
lists?














From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Nov 30 04:27:43 2005
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:27:43 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
In-Reply-To: <dmj56b+a0ci@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmj9nv+i9bm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143735

I read an interview with JKR in which she talked about how she cried when she wrote 
the death. Her husband (?) (who did not know WHO died) said  something to the effect 
of "well don't kill him" but she said he had to die. She'd known it for a long time but 
went along in denial until she had to write it. I'm pretty certain that DD is dead dead. 
I've often thought about killing off your characters as being something that must be 
most difficult to do. (I will be most disappointed, however, if she is ruthless enough 
to kill HP. I don't think that will happen. <crosses fingers>. )

kchuplis








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Wed Nov 30 06:45:47 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:45:47 -0000
Subject: Victims, Oppressors, and redress (was DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dmi1bi+4jg2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmjhqr+rt7u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143736

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>

PIPPIN:

> Adult!Harry and Snape *are* peers. It only remains for Harry to 
realize it.
>  Even if Harry returns to Hogwarts, Snape would no longer have any 
claim 
> to superiority over him either as  a professor (as Snape has  left 
his post)  or 
> as an adult, once Harry turns seventeen. 

LUPINLORE:

You are, of course, quite correct in a legal sense.  Under wizarding 
law Harry and Snape are both adults -- or will be as soon as Harry 
reaches his seventeenth birthday and becomes a licensed wizard.

But that does not alter the fact that Snape is a child abuser.  Yes, 
his abuse is not as bad as that perpetrated by some others, and he is 
not the same as Voldemort.  But his abuse is one of the central facts 
of the books.  Realization of legal equality does not restore actual 
equality to such a relationship.  In order to do that serious redress 
of emotional and social wrongs is required.  And I stand firmly by my 
contention that if JKR waves her hands and dismisses this with "it 
was all Dumbledore's plan" or "that's the way it is in the Wizarding 
World" then it would be very poor writing.  And if she actually 
proceeds to make a hero out of said child abuser, well it is beyond 
poor writing.

Now, redress, as Alla especially has pointed out, in message # 143119:

ALLA;

I mean, yes of course JKR won't bespending pages on going on and on 
how bad Snape was to Harry and Neville, because indeed one book left  
and too many loose ends to tie, BUT I think that if Snape will be 
punished for who he is, as a package deal, it is perfectly reasonable 
to assume that abuse will be included in there.

<SNIP>

I think there are ways for JKR to write just few sentences and still
show that Snape will not go punishment free.

LUPINLORE:

I certainly agree with everything said there.


PIPPIN:

> 
> The way I see it, Harry and Snape both have to grow out of their 
roles of
> victim and oppressor, which I believe JKR sees as a very limited 
way to 
> confront the world. 

LUPINLORE:

Well, you are very big on the idea of adulthood as being a major 
driving factor in the series.  I am not -- certainly not to the 
extent that I think the wrongs of childhood can be dismissed or that 
seeking redress for those wrongs in any way represents being stuck in 
an undesirable state (and I'm not saying that you have made such a 
statement, I'm only stating my own view).

More to the point, I don't think JKR has any such 
overriding "philosophy" of growth and development, much less 
of "victim" and "oppressor."  In that she is following patterns, I 
think they are the unoriginal and frankly boring patterns of the 
hero's journey and the idea that, for some silly reason, it's 
supposed to be made without appropriate emotional support (thus 
dictating Sirius' death, Lupin's emotional coldness, Dumbledore's 
mistakes, the bizarre failure of the adults to recognize abuse in 
Harry's case, etc.).  But like I say, that is not any kind of life 
philosophy on her part, but a slavish devotion to an outworn and 
wearisome set of literary tropes and the rather bizarre belief that 
addressing the wrongs done to Harry would somehow make things 
uninteresting for a reader.  In fact, they would greatly deepen the 
emotional levels of the novels and make things much MORE 
interesting.  Then again, JKR ain't the world's greatest when it 
comes to dealing realistically and believably with emotions.

Which is yet another strike against DDM!Snape, particularly of the 
superspy subvariety.  If part of the driving factors behind the saga 
is an insistence that the hero be unsupported save by boon 
companions, then having Superspy!Snape roar out of the scenery to 
save the day is frankly silly, and all he sillier if it is all part 
of some plan of Dumbledores (yes, we have Anakin and Gollum, but 
neither of them are superspies operating in accord with some pre-
arranged plan or set of contingencies).  If she was going to do 
something like that, I'd have been much more impressed if she had 
defied outworn tradition and kept Dumbledore (or Sirius) alive.  
Coming up with a superspy!Snape to save Harry, identify/destroy 
horcruxes, or otherwise tip the scales would strike me as, well, 
rather hypocritical at this point.


Lupinlore










From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 10:19:37 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:19:37 -0000
Subject: Ministry storyline, Harry's army and Mrs Figg
In-Reply-To: <020901c5f554$98b2f490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmjubq+e0fk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143737

> Miles:
> But I doubt, that there will be polyjuice potion involved. To use 
it, "Mrs.
> Figg" would have to drink it every hour, and the real Mrs Figg 
must be
> hidden somewhere - for some 15 years.

a_svirn:
Not only that. There is no reason to suspect Mrs. Figg in being an 
impostor. Here is the information from Rowling website: 

"Sometimes they [squibs ? a_svirn] find a way to fit in; Filch has 
carved himself a niche at Hogwarts and Arabella Figg operates as 
Dumbledore's liaison between the magical and Muggle worlds. Neither 
of these characters can perform magic (Filch's Kwikspell course 
never worked), but they still function within the wizarding world 
because they have access to certain magical objects and creatures 
that can help them (Arabella Figg does a roaring trade in cross-bred 
cats and Kneazles, and if you don`t know what a Kneazle is yet, 
shame on you). Incidentally, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors 
that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical knowledge 
to identify correctly the sensations they created in the alleyway."

> Miles:
> We do not know the way the inherence of houses and elves is 
determined. So,
> "legal death" could matter, even if the "dead" person is alive in 
reality.

a_svirn:
Yes, we do. Dumbledore was quite clear on the subject. House-elves 
go with houses, and the No.12 passes to the next male Black in the 
line of succession. Were Regulus alive Harry could not inherit. 







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 10:28:25 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:28:25 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <028601c5f565$4b269950$4a87400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dmjus9+anfn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143738

 
> Magpie:
> 
> Yup.  Starting with being heard by everyone, but even beyond that, 
yes.

There is a subtle semantic difference between being heard and being 
listened. Hagrid did no "rattle" the information; he stated it with 
the utmost clarity. Everyone who listened heard him. Those who didn't 
didn't.  Simple as that. 

a_svirn






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 30 11:32:37 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:32:37 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmjljn+rlkh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmk2kl+ulk8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143739

Geoff:
> Looking at things as a native English speaker, I have never 
> heard "spinner" used as the word for a liar.
> 
> We will talk of someone "spinning a yarn" which can mean a 
> storyteller - such as JKR or JRRT for example - but it can mean 
> someone who is bending the truth, but only in this grammatical 
form, 
> not as a noun.

Ceridwen:
Spinning as lying would come from telling 'tall tales', 
your 'spinning a yarn'.  When done for entertainment, that's good.  
When done to get out of trouble or get someone else into trouble when 
one is culpable, that's bad.  Another phrase that would go with it 
is 'making something up out of wholecloth'.  Like the 'Mr. Nobody' 
kids often invent when Mom or Dad asks who spilled, broke, 
rearranged, or shaved something.  Part of the story might be true, 
but the overall effect is a lie.  There might be a difference here 
between US and UK speak.  I'm US, I think you said you're UK?

Another thing for 'spinning' is 'spinning one's wheels', or going on 
uselessly, as in telling those tall tales when nobody believes you.  
Did Bellatrix believe a single word Snape said?  Did Snape believe 
any part of what he was saying?  You could even be spinning your 
wheels if you're telling the truth and no one believes you.  Or if 
what you're saying has no bearing on the subject or is not offering a 
solution.

Ceridwen, finally remembering spinning one's wheels (spinning 
wheels?) after how many months? and wondering if there are any other 
possibilities we haven't explored.






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 30 13:54:19 2005
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:54:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmjljn+rlkh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F1609A1EC5682D34FB050AC914A0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 143740




Geoff:
>Looking at things as a native English speaker, I have never
>heard "spinner" used as the word for a liar.

>We will talk of someone "spinning a yarn" which can mean a
>storyteller - such as JKR or JRRT for example - but it can mean
>someone who is bending the truth, but only in this grammatical form,
>not as a noun.

Then there's the ever popular spin that exists in politics.  A microscopic 
kernel of truth surrounded by lies, innuendoes and half truths for the 
purpose of manipulation... It could also fit in that chapter but we don't 
know if the spin doctor was Snape, Cissy or even Voldermort at this point.

PJ (who was really disappointed in the GOF movie)






Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from 
posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links








From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov 30 14:05:36 2005
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:05:36 -0000
Subject: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <dmiqld+qlcj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkbjg+97mj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143741

Jen pondered:
> Harry has made quite a few human and creature allies over the years,
> as well as acquiring enchanted objects which haven't made an
> appearance yet. I wonder who and what will reappear at a pivotal
> moment in Book 7? The list includes mainly those
> people/creatures/items we haven't seen actively help Harry yet, but
> seem poised to do so.
>
> Wizards:
> 1) Wormtail--not an ally, but the life debt and all.

SSSusan:
Absolutely a given, I do believe.  Not that I'm crazy about it, 
but... it does seem certain to come.  I suppose the question is 
whether the life debt repayment will be *intentional* or not.


> 2) Hagrid--maybe his moment was at Godric's Hollow? It just occurred
> to me from the other threads at the moment Hagrid hasn't exactly
> *helped* Harry in a pinch, even though he's been emotionally
> supportive and nurturing. Maybe that's his main role in the end.

SSSusan:
Not to discount the importance of that constant support, but I do 
believe there will be something Bigger in store for Hagrid, as well.  
In fact, I fear it will be something which requires his death. (Wah.)


> 5) Krum--we know he'll be back from JKR and he's not under the thumb
> of Karkaroff anymore. Probably will play on one of the UK Quidditch
> teams and help out along the way?

SSSusan:
I'm VERY much looking forward to this, though my gut feeling is that 
it will be through some other mechanism or situation than Quidditch 
that he will play this role.  I've no strong notion of what that will 
be, though I like the idea of his joining the Order or returning to 
Hogwarts as an instructor.  

Since we know from Herself that Krum *will* be back, I hope this is a 
topic that those who love prediction and speculation will really take 
off with as Book 7 approaches.

Other possibilities from within the Wizard category, some of whom 
likely fall into the "already helped Harry" category:

Lupin -- PLEASE, Jo, bring Lupin to the fore.  Have him active in 
Book 7, with a major role to play.  And prove once and for all 
(pretty please!) that he's truly good, if nowhere near perfect.

Neville -- He already did help at the DoM, but I'm sure there's MUCH 
more to come for him.  'Course, I expected a lot from him in HBP and 
didn't get it, but there has to be more, no?

Aberforth -- I think he'll prove important to Harry in the horcrux 
hunt in some way. 

Molly -- She's already (imo) done oodles to help Harry, particularly 
in the support category, as Hagrid.  But I'd love to see her DO 
something really big to help.  Maybe alongside Arthur, but I'd love 
for it to be solo.

Percy -- What do others think?  Will he stick with the bed he's made, 
or will he have a change of heart?


> Creatures:
> 1) Norbert--an eponymous chapter in the first book only to
> disappear? Hmmmm....

SSSusan:
Heh heh.  This one has been used in fanfic so often I almost thought 
Jo *had* brought Norbert back already!  


> 2) Merpeople--chieftess impressed by Harry in the second task and
> loyal to Dumbledore.

SSSusan:
I have always liked the idea of using the lake 
underground  "connection" (it's gotta connect somehow, right, if the 
Durmstrang ship came that way??), perhaps with Gringotts.  I always 
thought DD's scar-in-the-shape-of-the-London Underground would also 
play into this... but I guess that'd be kinda hard to manage NOW.  
(Phooey.)


> 3) Grawp--has technically already helped Harry, so maybe we'll get a
> pass on him in book 7. :-)

SSSusan:
Oh, please, PLEASE, let it be so.  NO MORE GRAWP.  I'm going to form 
The Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Grawp-plots (SPUG), and 
when I have 4 million signatures or so (shouldn't be a problem) will 
mail it to JKR.


> Objects:
> 1) Sirius' motorcycle, now belonging to Harry and promised to be
> back.

SSSusan:
Wouldn't it be somehow appropriate, if not poetic, if Harry used the 
bike to go back to Godric's Hollow?


> 2) Dobby's gifts, either the socks or portrait of Harry--I hope one
> of these returns and Dobby is surprised to find out Harry didn't
> realize they had powers.

SSSusan:
Well, with DD's longing for socks, with Harry having freed Dobby via 
a sock, and with Dobby's having gifted Harry with socks, maybe socks 
will somehow prove important.  No idea how, of course.


> 3) Mirrors--set to return according to JKR.

SSSusan:
Was this specifically the Sirius-James two-way mirrors, or something 
more general than that?  I can't remember the interview comments.  
How many of us expected the two-way ones to reappear in 6, though?  I 
know I did.  Maybe Harry will utilize them while he's away on Horcrux 
hunts?  


> Harry may be going forward alone, but I think his back is 
> covered<g>.
> Jen, hoping for a united front rather than the typical solo hero's
> journey.

SSSusan:
I'm sure his back's covered, more than he knows, and I can't imagine 
Jo having Harry do this solo.  Yeah, his mentor figures are mostly 
gone, so I don't think he'll have anyone *leading* him, and in that 
sense it'll be his efforts, his decisions how to proceed, but I think 
he'll be surrounded by friends (and friendly objects?) at the end.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping none of the friendly objects will feel 
like deus ex machina.








From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 30 14:15:59 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:15:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
In-Reply-To: <dmj9nv+i9bm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001001c5f5b8$97ad45f0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 143742

I read an interview with JKR in which she talked about how she cried when
she wrote 
the death. Her husband (?) (who did not know WHO died) said  something to
the effect 
of "well don't kill him" but she said he had to die. She'd known it for a
long time but 
went along in denial until she had to write it. I'm pretty certain that DD
is dead dead. 
I've often thought about killing off your characters as being something that
must be 
most difficult to do. (I will be most disappointed, however, if she is
ruthless enough 
to kill HP. I don't think that will happen. <crosses fingers>. )

kchuplis


Sherry now:

Actually, that interview was done after OOTP, and she was speaking about the
death of Sirius.

sherry




From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Wed Nov 30 14:14:09 2005
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:14:09 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmjus9+anfn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkc3h+np1k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143743

a_svirn wrote:

>  
>
>> Magpie:
>>
>> Yup.  Starting with being heard by everyone, but even beyond that, 
>
>
> yes.
>
> There is a subtle semantic difference between being heard and being
listened. Hagrid did no "rattle" the information; he stated it with
the utmost clarity. Everyone who listened heard him. Those who didn't
didn't.  Simple as that.
> a_svirn



Can you imagine McGonagall not noticing that some students didn't hear
a crucial bit of instructions? She would notice that Malfoy
deliberately didn't listen, would make him repeat, take points, repeat
it again etc.
I can't believe people defend Hagrid for this lesson. He didn't bring
one Hippogriff, as in the movie, he brought several and the children
were supposed to work with them simultaneously.
Even if they'd all listened to the last word of the instructions,
there is no way Hagrid could supervise this lesson to some standard of
safety.

Bringing it back to Snape, if we use the same standard, it must be all
Neville's fault, right? Because Snape's instructions are perfectly
clear, and Hermione can brew perfect potions from them, so why can't
Neville?
Oh, and when Harry deliberately disrupts a lesson, Snape would not be
at fault at all if some children were seriously hurt as a result?
 It's lucky that he's a "sadistic git" then, not another teacher "with
a heart of gold", like Hagrid. I'm not sure Hogwarts could take two.


Irene







From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 14:36:13 2005
From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:36:13 -0000
Subject: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <dmkbjg+97mj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkdct+bsqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143744

> SSSusan:
> > 3) Mirrors--set to return according to JKR.
> Was this specifically the Sirius-James two-way mirrors, or something 
> more general than that?  I can't remember the interview comments.  
> How many of us expected the two-way ones to reappear in 6, though?  
I 
> know I did.  Maybe Harry will utilize them while he's away on 
Horcrux 
> hunts?  


I would love to see this.  Maybe, if Harry's true desire was to find 
the horcruxes, the mirror of Erised could help also.  But that two way 
mirror still haunts me, because I think it can be used for something, 
I'm just not sure what exactly. 

Alora 






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 14:51:51 2005
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:51:51 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmj1ar+dj6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkea7+l7le@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143745

> AllieS426  wrote:
> >  I  honestly don't know why Dumbledore allows Hagrid to continue 
> > teaching.  On the other hand, Harry and his friends all achieved 
OWL 
> > in Care of Magical Creatures, so they must be learning something, 
> > even if Hagrid is completely irresponsible.  
> 
> va32h: 
> When Dumbledore introduces Hagrid as the new CoMC teacher, he 
> remarks that the previous teacher, Professor Kettleburn, has 
> retired "to enjoy the use of his remaining limbs". PoA pg 93.
> 
> This suggest to me that Care of Magical Creatures has always been a 
> dangerous class, and interacting with magical creatures inherently 
> risky. Or perhaps all CoMC instructors are careless about safety. 
Or 
> safety isn't too much of a concern in a magical world where 
injuries 
> are healed rather quickly and painlessly. 

Ginger adds:
va32h, you took the words right off of my keyboard.  

If you will allow me to use this as a jumping off point...

Hagrid (or any of the other teachers, for that matter) has no 
training for being a teacher.  The other teachers (we assume) have at 
least completed their Hogwarts education.  Based on Dippet's refusal 
to hire Tom Riddle straight out of school in HBP, I assume that 
teachers go out into the world and get some practical experience, and 
then, based on what they have learned at Hogwarts and life, they 
teach it to the students.

Just about everyone who teaches, by profession or as a mentor, models 
themselves after the good teachers they have had in the past.  Even 
with modern post-secondary education, the first year teacher is not 
well established in their teaching patterns.  Good ones learn from 
their mistakes.

Hagrid was expelled in his 3rd year.  He would have only had 1 year 
of CoMC (assuming it was a 3rd year elective back then).  Everything 
else he has learned on the subject has been learned through his own 
experiences with these creatures or from watching the CoMC teachers 
who were teaching as he worked the grounds.  Given his natural 
abilities with animals, and his eagerness to learn more about them, 
it would not surprise me if the former teachers didn't take him under 
their wings and give him some private lessons.  

When Hagrid begins his teaching, he has only 1 year of classroom 
experience, and almost a half century of personal experience.  

Where I believe Hagrid fails is not that he doesn't know what is 
important to teach, but that he assumes that his students (who are 
taking it as an elective) will share the same passion about the 
animals that he does.  He assumes that everyone else will be excited 
about the various creatures they are studying, as he himself finds 
them facinating.  If you want to test this theory in real life, try 
talking Harry Potter to someone who says they read the books.  It 
doesn't work to talk to them on our level if they can't remember who 
Moody is.  Don't even attempt MAGIC DISHWASHER.

The second place where I see Hagrid failing is that he doesn't see 
himself as being any different from the others.  He has been 
interacting with these creatures for such a long time that he knows 
the inherant dangers, but knows that with the proper handling, they 
are perfectly safe for him.  Like a weightlifter tossing a 98 pound 
weakling a set of barbells, not realizing that they are too heavy for 
the smaller person to lift.   Or like a welder handling a torch that 
would cause me to back away in fear.  

I also think that Hagrid assumed that the Care of Magical Creatures 
class would cover the care of all magical creatures, not just the 
fluffy ones.  It would seem reasonable that after 5 years of the 
class, someone who wanted this as a career should know about a wide 
variety of creatures.  Hagrid, as he realized later, should have 
started smaller.

I wouldn't doubt that if Hagrid did receive extra mentoring from 
previous professors that they taught him differently than regular 
students knowing that 1)he was hanging on their every word, 2)he was 
strong enough physically to handle more than the average student, and 
3)he had a natural aptitude.

If this is the case, then Hagrid was only teaching the way that he 
was taught.  It's not easy teaching one's pet subject to a group that 
couldn't care less.  Hagrid wouldn't understand that in his first 
year of teaching.  It's disheartening to find that your passion is 
someone else's drudgery.  Expecially, as in Hagrid's case, where he 
went out of his way to find things to teach that he thought the 
students would find interesting.

I know that I could teach piano- I've had 12 years of lessons, 25 
years as an organist and have a degree in music.  I would know how to 
plan lessons etc.  Trying to teach my Godson to hit a baseball was 
another story alltogether.  All I could do was put the bat in his 
hands, throw the ball and say "aim".  (OK, so it was a ball of yarn 
and a light sabre as we didn't have the real things, but you get the 
point.)  I was useless to give him the finer points because I don't 
remember being taught them myself.  I just know how to do it.  I 
think that's where Hagrid was during his first year.

And, if I may be a bit snarky, it couldn't have happened to a nicer 
person than Draco.

Ginger, who had no idea kids could be so inattentive until she 
actually had to try and teach some.







From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Wed Nov 30 14:59:09 2005
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:59:09 -0000
Subject: Ministry storyline, Harry's army and Mrs Figg
In-Reply-To: <020901c5f554$98b2f490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <dmkent+cq0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143746

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at m...> wrote:

> Miles:
> Very interesting idea. I can add another detail: the inside of one
of the
> tents the Weasley's use at the Quidditch Worldcup is identical with the
> interieur of Mrs Figg's house. And Mr Weasley borrowed the tent from a
> fellow witch at the Ministry (I have no quote, no English version of
GoF at
> hand). We can be quite sure, that this detail will be important. 

Hm, some contrary indications. Mrs. Figgs let Harry deal with the
dementors, which gave him a huge amount of trouble with the MoM. If
she were a witch, and one working at the MoM herself, why didn't she
get rid of them herself? 

At Harry's trial she was not convincing when she said she'd seen the
Dementors - as a squib she could not see them - but she was when she
described their effect on her. If she were a witch, she would have
seen the Dementors and her description of them would have been just as
convincing as her description of their effects.

p.74 GOF Arthur borrowed the tents from a wizard named Perkins, who is
too old for camping. 

Gerry






From papa at marvels.org  Wed Nov 30 15:25:20 2005
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:25:20 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <dmkbjg+97mj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <42FD96840002A31B@mta9.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143747

Jen Reese wrote:
<snip>
2) Dobby's gifts, either the socks or portrait of Harry--I hope one  of these returns and Dobby is surprised to find out Harry didn't  realize they had powers.

SSSusan responded:
Well, with DD's longing for socks, with Harry having freed Dobby via a sock, and with Dobby's having gifted Harry with socks, maybe socks will somehow prove important.  No idea how, of course.

RM:
I think this is a wonderful thought and we have direct quotes concerning them in DD's references to socks in PS/SS:

HARRY: What do you see when you look in the mirror [of Erised]?
DUMBLEDORE: I? I see myself holding a pair of thick, woolen socks.

and

"One can never have enough socks," said Dumbledore. "Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get a single pair. People will insist on giving me books." 

RM - going off to ruminate on the magical possibilities of warm, comfy socks.






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Nov 30 15:37:29 2005
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:37:29 -0000
Subject: Circumstantial proof of DDM Snape (long)
In-Reply-To: <2bf.f0f44.30bea935@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dmkgvp+pjea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143748

> Julie:
> I don't expect that to happen either. What I do suspect is that once
> Harry destroys the first Horcrux, he may figure out a shortcut to 
> locating the others. Thus it won't be a whole book of Harry hunting
> down each horcrux with equally consuming amounts of time and
> effort.  And while Snape won't actually destroy any  Horcruxes,
> I won't be surprised if he is instrumental in Harry locating them.
>  

What interests me is that although DD destroyed the Horcrux within 
Marvolo's ring due to his own 'prodigous skill', he only survived the 
whole episode due to Severus Snape!! Whatever the curse was that 
affected DD, he was not able to repel it himself. Therefore is it 
possible that Snape is actually more capable of dealing with these 
Horcruxes (and the curses placed upon them), than DD himself?

Also, if a plan does exist between Snape and DD to facilitate Harry's 
destruction of Voldemort, I do not think that Snape's role would be 
to somehow point Harry in the right direction. I cannot see DD asking 
Snape - 'Severus, although you are clearly a powerful wizard and know 
more about the Dark Arts than anyone I know, I do not want you to 
deal with the Horcruxes personally. I would rather Harry deals with 
them, even though it will put him in mortal danger'.

Brothergib








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 30 15:59:32 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:59:32 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmk2kl+ulk8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmki94+njje@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143749

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...> wrote:

> Ceridwen, finally remembering spinning one's wheels (spinning 
> wheels?) after how many months? and wondering if there are any other 
> possibilities we haven't explored.
>

Pippin:
Remember the  Sphinx's riddle in GoF?

'First think of the person who lives in disguise
Who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies.
Next, tell me what's always the last thing to mend,
The middle of middle and end of the end?
And finally give me the sound often heard
During the search for a hard-to-find word.
Now string them together, and answer me this,
What creature would you be unwilling to kiss?'

The riddle ties together 'spy', 'spider' and 'end'.

Pippin






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 30 16:03:53 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:03:53 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F1609A1EC5682D34FB050AC914A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dmkih9+uk54@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143750

PJ:
> Then there's the ever popular spin that exists in politics.  A
> microscopic kernel of truth surrounded by lies, innuendoes and
> half truths for the purpose of manipulation... It could also fit
> in that chapter but we don't know if the spin doctor was Snape,
> Cissy or even Voldermort at this point.

Jen: That's how I read it too, in the political sense, especially 
because it followed The Other Minister chapter (hee, loved that 
title too).

You know, Bart made this suggestion upthread: "Reread the chapter, 
think of Snape as loyal to the OOP, and concentrate, not on what 
Snape says, but on what Snape DOESN'T say." I decided to try it last 
night and it's true Snape's omissions, especially regarding Harry, 
could be proof of his loyalty. Unfortunately it works both ways, you 
can also read it as Snape being not loyal to Dumbledore, or OFH. So 
JKR is a genius at obfuscation. 

But one big thing did stick out to me, since PJ pointed out the spin 
could be Cissy, Snape or even LV. Why does Snape claim he passed the 
information to Voldemort about Sirius when Cissy is sitting right 
there? That flies in the face of what we know Dumbledore 
legilimensed from Kreacher. 

I have two possible answers: 1) Kreacher was ordered to say he 
passed the information to Narcissa to cover for Snape. This doesn't 
hold up, though, because DD should have been able to legilimens that 
too. 2) The Spin was for Bella, and Narcissa and Snape are somehow 
in cahoots. I always found it fishy Narcissa told Bella she was 
going to Snape's house if she didn't want her there. I think 
Narcissa needed her to come either because needed a third for the 
UV, or she and Snape are for some reason putting on an act for Bella 
(and Wormtail) to report back to Voldemort.

I like that last one, but it seems impossible. Narcissa is desperate 
to help Draco. If she had actually decided to change sides, she 
would do what all people do and go to Dumbledore for protection.

Jen








From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 30 15:20:15 2005
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:20:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
References: <dmjus9+anfn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008201c5f5c1$91bf3e10$aa7f400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 143751


>> Magpie:
>>
>> Yup.  Starting with being heard by everyone, but even beyond that,
> yes.
>

a_svrn:
> There is a subtle semantic difference between being heard and being
> listened. Hagrid did no "rattle" the information; he stated it with
> the utmost clarity. Everyone who listened heard him. Those who didn't
> didn't.  Simple as that.

Magpie:

That's hardly the attitude with which to approach a class of 13-year-olds on 
dangerous animals.  I went to classes involving less-dangerous animals as a 
kid and believe me, that was not the way it went, especially since no class 
of kids or adults has everyone listening all the time.  But even if Hagrid 
was being heard, that's not the utmost clarity at all. That's more the way 
you warn your friend to not touch your beer than the way you teach a kid to 
deal with a giant fanged predator.

I definitely don't think this was the way Hagrid was thinking.  It doesn't 
seem like he even considered the idea that someone would get hurt to prove 
his point, he just didn't (continues to not) consider the animals hurting 
people as a possibility he really has to focus on.  If this was Hagrid's 
attitude it sounds like getting somebody hurt was the point of the class.

irene_mikhlin:

It's lucky that Snape's a "sadistic git" then, not another teacher "with a 
heart of gold", like Hagrid. I'm not sure Hogwarts could take two.

Magpie:

LOL--yeah, pretty much.  There's a reason that amongst the people who really 
have to take the classes, Snape is actually more popular.

Ginger:

I was useless to give him the finer points because I don't remember being 
taught them myself.  I just know how to do it.  I think that's where Hagrid 
was during his first year.

Magpie:

I think you already sound like a better teacher than Hagrid.

Ginger:

And, if I may be a bit snarky, it couldn't have happened to a nicer person 
than Draco.

Magpie:

And yet ironically, CoMC becomes the class where Draco usually speaks for 
the class.  The Trio tells him to shut up on principle, but often agrees 
with him too. And they all drop his class.

-m 





From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 30 16:30:33 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:33 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <008201c5f5c1$91bf3e10$aa7f400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <001e01c5f5cb$63aaa0a0$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 143752

irene_mikhlin:

It's lucky that Snape's a "sadistic git" then, not another teacher "with a 
heart of gold", like Hagrid. I'm not sure Hogwarts could take two.

Magpie:

LOL--yeah, pretty much.  There's a reason that amongst the people who really

have to take the classes, Snape is actually more popular.



Sherry now:

If i had to pick, I'd take Hagrid over a sadist like Snape any day of the
year.  i had a sadist for a teacher, and no, he didn't inspire me to try
harder or any other such nonsense.  I also had some tough teachers who were
not sadists and could get the very best out of me.  i actually like being
challenged.  But I had to suffer a verbally and emotionally abusive teacher
for all of high school.  I got an ulcer because of that, among other things.
No child should ever have to tolerate Snape's kind of abuse.  I'd never let
a child of mine tolerate him.  I'd home school my kids before I'd let that
happen.  But I'd let them take classes from Hagrid in a heartbeat.  He's
loyal, lovable, innocent and would die to protect them.  of course, I'd warn
them to watch out for blast ended skrewts!  LOL.  But then there are few
animals that would frighten me, and those that did would be treated with
respect.  even when i was 13 I'd have had more sense than Draco.  I'd take
Hagrid's hippogriff lessons over Snape's threats to poison the toad.  and in
fact, I'm slightly astonished that people think Hagrid is worse than Snape,
if you take those two situations side by side.  There's nothing positive in
Snape's threats.  He's threatening a kid's pet, for goodness sake.  It
doesn't matter that we as adults might be able to reason out that he might
not be serious in his threat.  Neville believes it absolutely.  That is just
utter cruelty.

In the end, McGonigal and Lupin are the best sorts of teachers imaginable.
McGonigal is tough and strict but fair.  Lupin knows how to get the best out
of his students and also can give them a sort of emotional support.  his
style would have been the style under which I'd have thrived.  

just my opinion of course.

Sherry




From lealess at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 16:39:53 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:39:53 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmki94+njje@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkkkp+utsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143753

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" 
<ceridwennight at h...> wrote:
> 
> > Ceridwen, finally remembering spinning one's wheels (spinning 
> > wheels?) after how many months? and wondering if there are any 
> > other possibilities we haven't explored.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> Remember the  Sphinx's riddle in GoF?
> 
> 'First think of the person who lives in disguise
> Who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies.
> Next, tell me what's always the last thing to mend,
> The middle of middle and end of the end?
> And finally give me the sound often heard
> During the search for a hard-to-find word.
> Now string them together, and answer me this,
> What creature would you be unwilling to kiss?'
> 
> The riddle ties together 'spy', 'spider' and 'end'.
> 
> Pippin
>

Speaking of spinning wheels, there was that whole exercise fad of 
spinning with specially-made, fixed bicycles, going nowhere except 
better health, I guess.  The point was to push oneself to the limits 
of one's endurance, I think, directed by a punishing and inflexible 
trainer.  It's another spinning reference...

I like the spider anologies best, however.  There's the web, an 
elaborate structure set in place through painstaking work, undone by 
a "widow" who turns against a would-be male suitor.  There's the 
sitting in wait for prey, controlling the more destructive insect 
population.  There's the trickster, Anansi, who can convince larger 
animals to do his work and then "steals their glory," primarily 
through exploiting their character faults.

My favorite spider story is about Robert the Bruce, where a Scottish 
king, after six disastrous battles, hides in a cave and is ready to 
concede defeat.  He watches a spider try to bridge a gap.  The spider 
fails six times, but on the seventh attempt, succeeds.  Inspired by 
this, the king goes back into battle a seventh time and wins.  I know 
it's wishful thinking that this story could apply to HP, but, oh 
well...

lealess







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 30 16:42:34 2005
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:42:34 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <008201c5f5c1$91bf3e10$aa7f400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dmkkpq+6b33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143754

> Magpie:
> That's hardly the attitude with which to approach a class of 13-year-
> olds on dangerous animals. <snip> I definitely don't think this was
> the way Hagrid was thinking.  It doesn't seem like he even 
> considered the idea that someone would get hurt to prove his point,
> he just didn't (continues to not) consider the animals hurting
> people as a possibility he really has to focus on.  

Jen: Like sending Harry and Ron to the spiders? Hagrid's blind spot is 
the core of his problem as a teacher. I do think if Hogwarts is open 
and there is a COMC class next year, he will have one student: Luna. 
Someone who understands the beauty of the creatures and doesn't mind 
the danger. 

In the end, Hagrid has caused more internal angst and ethical dilemmas 
to sort out for the Trio than Snape. Hating someone is easy and not 
right, isn't it? Dealing with sometimes enourmous character flaws is 
very difficult, but by Potterverse standards, I think that is what 
Dumbledore and JKR advocate doing.

Jen






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 30 17:01:48 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:01:48 -0000
Subject: Victims, Oppressors, and redress (was DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dmjhqr+rt7u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmklts+jqqr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143755

 
> LUPINLORE:
> 
> You are, of course, quite correct in a legal sense.  Under wizarding 
> law Harry and Snape are both adults -- or will be as soon as Harry 
> reaches his seventeenth birthday and becomes a licensed wizard.
> 
> But that does not alter the fact that Snape is a child abuser.  Yes, 
> his abuse is not as bad as that perpetrated by some others, and he is 
> not the same as Voldemort.  But his abuse is one of the central facts 
> of the books.  Realization of legal equality does not restore actual 
> equality to such a relationship.  In order to do that serious redress 
> of emotional and social wrongs is required. 

Pippin:
Only if the emotional and social wrongs are serious. You might as 
well call the sniffles a serious disease. Sure,  it  could conceivably develop 
into pneumonia and kill you, but behaving as if that is likely to happen 
is  overreacting. 

 I don't blame Harry for overreacting, but he should
realize eventually that, as Dumbledore gently tried to tell 
him, a grownup wouldn't take Snape's taunts seriously.

 
> LUPINLORE:
> 
> Well, you are very big on the idea of adulthood as being a major 
> driving factor in the series.  I am not -- certainly not to the 
> extent that I think the wrongs of childhood can be dismissed or that 
> seeking redress for those wrongs in any way represents being stuck in 
> an undesirable state (and I'm not saying that you have made such a 
> statement, I'm only stating my own view).
> 

Pippin:

I don't think JKR is saying that the wrongs of childhood can be 
dismissed, just that the child's perspective about them isn't the last
word. Dudley, for example, has no idea that he's been wronged by
his parents, while more than once wrongly thinking that Harry has
wronged *him*. 

Lupinlore:
 If part of the driving factors behind the saga 
> is an insistence that the hero be unsupported save by boon 
> companions, then having Superspy!Snape roar out of the scenery to 
> save the day is frankly silly, and all he sillier if it is all part 
> of some plan of Dumbledores (yes, we have Anakin and Gollum, but 
> neither of them are superspies operating in accord with some pre-
> arranged plan or set of contingencies).  If she was going to do 
> something like that, I'd have been much more impressed if she had 
> defied outworn tradition and kept Dumbledore (or Sirius) alive.  

Pippin:
But they're much less peers of Harry than Snape is! Dumbledore is
superwizard personified, and Sirius is Harry's godfather and will always
be in a superior position. For either of them to rescue Harry yet
again would emphasize Harry's continued dependency, and make
him a second-class hero at best, whereas if  DDM!Snape helped Harry 
on his way, then Harry might just accept it as due recompense for all 
the crap he's had to put up with from Snape over the years. 

It's pretty clear that the final victory over Voldemort is going to be
Harry's, won with the weapons Voldemort himself has given him, one
of which might just be Weapon!Snape.

Harry's relationship with Sirius veered perilously close to co-dependency
in GoF -- I wonder if this is a danger for the readers too? Do we want
Harry to remain a helpless child so we can identify with his hope of
being rescued?


Pippin







From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 17:07:42 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:07:42 -0000
Subject: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <dmiqld+qlcj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkm8u+gtad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143756

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
>
> Harry has made quite a few human and creature allies over the 
years, 
> as well as acquiring enchanted objects which haven't made an 
> appearance yet. I wonder who and what will reappear at a pivotal 
> moment in Book 7? The list includes mainly those 
> people/creatures/items we haven't seen actively help Harry yet, but 
> seem poised to do so.

n_longbottom01:  

I have two suggestions to add to your list.

Wizards:

Tonks--  Unless her contribution to the story is only to let us know 
that there is such a thing as a Metamorphmagus (in which case we 
should keep our eyes peeled for another one), I expect to see more 
from her.  

Objects:

the Flying Ford Anglia-- The car has already come to Harry's rescue 
in The Chamber of Secrets, so maybe it's part has already been played 
out.  I read an interview (sorry I don't know where to find it now)
where JKR talked about the sense of freedom she felt when one of her 
friends first got an old car... I could see her using the Ford Anglia 
to let Harry, Ron, and Hermione experience a little bit of this.  
Harry won't be able to legally apparate right away... it would be 
nice if he wasn't stuck depending on other people to get him where he 
wants to go.

n_longbottom01 







From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Wed Nov 30 17:42:20 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:42:20 -0000
Subject: Victims, Oppressors, and redress (was DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dmjhqr+rt7u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmko9s+v12s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143757

> 
> LUPINLORE:
> 
> You are, of course, quite correct in a legal sense.  Under 
wizarding 
> law Harry and Snape are both adults -- or will be as soon as Harry 
> reaches his seventeenth birthday and becomes a licensed wizard.
> 
> But that does not alter the fact that Snape is a child abuser.  
Yes, 
> his abuse is not as bad as that perpetrated by some others, and he 
is 
> not the same as Voldemort.  But his abuse is one of the central 
facts 
> of the books.  Realization of legal equality does not restore 
actual 
> equality to such a relationship.  In order to do that serious 
redress 
> of emotional and social wrongs is required.  And I stand firmly by 
my 
> contention that if JKR waves her hands and dismisses this with "it 
> was all Dumbledore's plan" or "that's the way it is in the 
Wizarding 
> World" then it would be very poor writing.  And if she actually 
> proceeds to make a hero out of said child abuser, well it is beyond 
> poor writing.
> 
Since we seem to be on an abuse-and-its-impact-on-adult-life jag, I'd 
like to suggest an angle on why Snape dislikes Harry and hates the 
Marauders that I haven't seen mentioned either on the list or 
in "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them". (Which I take as further 
proof that adults never *do* notice until it's too late.) I won't 
drag it onto the list, because I think it might offend some people, 
but if you're interested, go to:

  www.katmac.cncdsl.com

and read "The Hallelujah Patrol" and "Sleeping Dogs". Scenario: It's 
post-WWII, Dumbledore *is* back at Hogwarts, as is Snape, Harry is a 
very junior professor having to learn to work with the latter, and 
Hogwarts is experimenting with Americans.

(And no, this isn't an attempt to get hordes of people to visit my 
Web site. The site isn't monetized, it doesn't even have a counter, 
and I invite only people I like to visit.)

--La Gatta






From nymphandoracallel at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 17:04:11 2005
From: nymphandoracallel at yahoo.com (Rebecca Johnson)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <dmkdct+bsqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051130170411.94279.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143758

    > SSSusan:
>> 3) Mirrors--set to return according to JKR. Was his specifically the Sirius-James two-way mirrors, or something more general than that?  I can't remember the interview comments.  
 How many of us expected the two-way ones to reappear in 6, though?  I know I did.  Maybe Harry will utilize them while he's away on Horcrux hunts?  <<

alora:
>I would love to see this.  Maybe, if Harry's true desire was to find the horcruxes, the mirror of Erised could help also.  But that two way mirror still haunts me, because I think it can be used for something, 
I'm just not sure what exactly. <
   
   
  I had wondered the same thing about the Mirror of Erised, but Dumbledore said that the mirror would provide you with *neither knowledge or truth*.  Also according to the Lexicon the SS was hidden *inside* the mirror. So when Harry found the stone by desiring it wasn't that just because the stone was already *in* mirror as one of the safegaurds or obstacles which would only allow someone to find it but not use it.  How exactly DD was able to do that and have the stone appear in Harry's pocket I'm not sure, but I don't think that using the Mirror would be able to help you find any of the Horcruxes if it cannot give you any knowledge of their whereabouts and LV would not be one to have had any access to the mirror to hide anything inside it.  So although I would love to see the mirror back and I know Jo loved that chapter in SS, I don't believe it will be used for finding the horcruxes, IMO.
   
  NymphandoraCallel ~ who hopes that one day Harry can look in the mirror with Ginny at his side and see only their reflections....





From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov 30 17:46:36 2005
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:46:36 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompet
In-Reply-To: <dm1634+h2iv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkohs+r7ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143759

> > > Potioncat:
> >  So, yes, I think DD speaks parseltongue.
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> So, my point is that Dumbledore might recognised Parseltongue 
without
> understanding it.

MercuryBlue:
Recognizing Parseltongue is not terribly difficult. If you hear 
snakelike hissing coming from a human mouth, particularly a human 
wizard mouth, and see snakes in the area (or other people who have 
been hissing the same way), odds are it's Parseltongue.

> Further, it's not hard to gather someone's intend
> but their inflection and tone of voice, and general 
demeanor. ...Even further, this idea is supported by the
> fact that the Gaunt's weren't engaged in long drawn out deeply
> intellectual conversations in Parseltongue, the statements are few,
> blunt, emotional, and to the points. Again, not hard to guess their
> intent.

Actually, from the perspective of someone who neither already knows 
nor can understand what's being said, I'd say it'd be very difficult 
to guess. In particular, Morfin was hissing about Merope leaning out 
the window to look at Tom. An observer who was out of the loop could 
tell from that that Morfin was taunting Merope, and from the next 
few lines of hisses that whatever-it-was infuriates Marvolo, but how 
would they be able to tell that the subject of conversation was 
Merope's crush? Let alone who on.

> To the central point, in general Dumbledore may or may not speak
> parseltongue, but the conversation in question does not actually
> reveal this fact for us.

MercuryBlue:
Yes, exactly. Dumbledore must know what is being said, but it 
doesn't necessarily follow that he understands it. Like I could look 
at the first page of Sorcerer's Stone en Espanol and know it's 
introducing the Dursleys, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I 
understand the words on the page. Which, as my Spanish vocabulary 
consists of maybe thirty words, I can't.

Since Dumbledore DOES know what's being talked about, he MUST have 
(had?) some way to translate it into English. It might be that he 
speaks Parseltongue, but that's terribly unlikely; it might be that 
he understands Parseltongue though he can't speak it, but it seems 
that those two skills go hand in hand; it might be that one of the 
weird silver things takes care of it; or...

We know Dumbledore met with a known Parselmouth while in possession 
of the memory, because he got it from Morfin Gaunt. Is it too much 
of a stretch to suppose he asked Morfin for a translation?








From bob.oliver at cox.net  Wed Nov 30 18:00:38 2005
From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:00:38 -0000
Subject: Victims, Oppressors, and redress (was DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dmklts+jqqr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkpc6+8p4a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143760

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
<SNIP> 
> But they're much less peers of Harry than Snape is! Dumbledore is
> superwizard personified, and Sirius is Harry's godfather and will
> always be in a superior position. For either of them to rescue 
> Harry yet again would emphasize Harry's continued dependency, and 
> make him a second-class hero at best, whereas if  DDM!Snape helped 
> Harry on his way, then Harry might just accept it as due recompense 
> for all the crap he's had to put up with from Snape over the years. 

Lupinlore:
Boring.  The hero loses all of his parental figures, must strike out 
on his own, yatta-yatta.  Boring, outworn, and so slavishly followed 
by JKR as to at times be annoying.  

Why do you think that help from such figures would mean "rescue" 
or "dependency?"  Very often it would be exactly the opposite - i.e. 
these figures gradually yielding place to the younger and more able 
characters.  To avoid this by literally killing off all parental 
figures is extremely lazy, IMO.

You are right that help from DDM!Snape might be seen as recompense, 
if properly handled.  But that would require an acknowledgment from 
Snape of his sins, and a sincere apology to Harry and Neville.  
Anything less would not equate to redemption for Snape, irregardless 
of where he stands vis-a-vis Dumbledore.


Pippin: 
> It's pretty clear that the final victory over Voldemort is going 
> to be Harry's, won with the weapons Voldemort himself has given 
> him, one of which might just be Weapon!Snape.
> 
> Harry's relationship with Sirius veered perilously close to co-
> dependency in GoF -- I wonder if this is a danger for the readers 
> too? Do we want Harry to remain a helpless child so we can identify 
> with his hope of being rescued?
 
Lupinlore:
Co-dependency?  Danger for readers?  Errr... yeah.  Perhaps as big a 
danger, or bigger, is that we forget the basic truth of adulthood -- 
adult independence and freedom of action is 90% illusion.  The idea 
that one grows up, turns one's back firmly on childhood, outgrows 
parental figures, and moves boldly into the world has some truth -- 
but only some.  To dismiss the traumas of childhood or the necessity 
of healing them, or the continued importance of supporting figures, 
even parental figures, into adulthood is a seductive pathology in 
its own right.


Lupinlore





From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Wed Nov 30 18:12:33 2005
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:12:33 -0000
Subject: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <dmkbjg+97mj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkq2h+qr18@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143761

>
> > 2) Dobby's gifts, either the socks or portrait of Harry--I hope one
> > of these returns and Dobby is surprised to find out Harry didn't
> > realize they had powers.
> 
> SSSusan:
> Well, with DD's longing for socks, with Harry having freed Dobby via 
> a sock, and with Dobby's having gifted Harry with socks, maybe socks 
> will somehow prove important.  No idea how, of course.
> 
Christmas stockings?

Guts for garters?

La Gatta






From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 18:13:44 2005
From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:13:44 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmioar+qkq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmkq4o+co1d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143762

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" <lucianam73 at y...> 
wrote:
>
> Caro wrote:
> >
> 
> A spinner of course could be a liar. But he could also be somebody 
> who spinns string. So it could also be the sealment of the end of
> the one who spinns something. For example countermeasures or means 
> of information. Then this spinner, whose end is sealed is  
> Dumbledore. If so, then the title of the chapter says very little 
> about Snape.
> > 
> > What is your opinion about this idea?
> > 
> > Yours Caro
> >
> 
> Lucianam answers:
> 
> Thanks, I didn't know 'spinner' could mean a liar (I'm not a native 
> english speaker, so I miss some things).
> 
> That would be very interesting, if Snape is 'spinning' his web of 
> lies, who is he trying to fool? If he's fooling Bellatrix in 
> Spinner's End, he could be on the right side.
> 
> Your idea of the spinner ending in Dumbledore's death is good, I 
> think, and very much to JKR's tastes. She likes her double meaning, 
> doesn't she?
> 
> I had never thought the title of this chapter was meaningful, 
thanks 
> for the clue!
> 
> Lucianam
>

n_longbottom01:

I had read "Spinners End" as "Spinner's End".  I connected Spinner 
with a spider spinning a web.  And I connected that idea with this 
saying:  "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practive to 
decieve."  So, in Spinners End, we see the spider (Snape) who has 
been spinning his web of lies get caught in his own web, which leads 
directly to his own end (his downfall, and eventually his demise).

I don't know what to make of Snape.  Right now I am tentatively 
settling on the idea that Snape was truely trying to serve two 
masters (trying to please two different father figures)... and it 
isn't until the Unbreakable Curse that he gets caught in a situation 
where he has to choose one side over the other.  And he gets caught 
in such a way so that he doesn't really have much choice.

n_longbottom01






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 19:15:30 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:15:30 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals (LONGish)
In-Reply-To: <001e01c5f5cb$63aaa0a0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dmktoi+h9of@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143764

va32h  wrote:
> > Applying real-life standards of safety to the magical world is 
always 
> > going to be frustrating. For me, it really reduces my enjoyment 
of the 
> > story to sidetrack myself with all the reasons this or that 
couldn't 
> > or shouldn't really happen. (I strictly speaking of my own 
experience 
> > here, to each his own). 

Alla:

Are you speaking strictly about standards of safety or about 
comparing magical world and RL in general? Because I view morals and 
ethics of Potterverse as reflection of RL and could not imagine 
thinking of them otherwise, BUT of course existence of magic makes 
safety standards a bit different, I suppose.


Leslie:
> Yah, I agree with that.  But if people are going to start piling 
on Snape for being a bad teacher, or mean, or whatever, there's 
plenty worse to pick on with Hagrid.  Snape is an EFFECTIVE 
teacher.  And his teaching does not imperil the very lives of his 
students.  Hagrid is both ineffective and dangerous.

Alla:

See my opinion on Hagrid below, BUT if Snape's effectiveness comes 
with the price of one student fearing him more than anything else in 
the world and another student feeling that he was imprisoning 
himself when he goes to one on one lessons with this teacher, I 
would take less effective teacher than Snape anytime. IMO only of 
course.



Leslie:
> I think Rowling once was asked about Snape, and Snape's retention 
at Hogwarts despite his seeming cruelty.  She said something 
like "there are teachers out there like Snape, and that's a lesson 
for Harry."

Alla:

Could you please point me to the quote where she said that? because 
I believe that she said something close but VERY different. I could 
be wrong of course.






Irene:

<SNIP>
> Even if they'd all listened to the last word of the instructions,
> there is no way Hagrid could supervise this lesson to some 
standard of
> safety.

Alla:

And still nobody else gets hurt, NOBODY but Malfoy, who we know did 
not listened and most likely plotted to disrupt the lesson.


Again, not saying that Hagrid is extremely good teacher, of course 
not, but I don't believe that he is horrible either. 


Irene:
> Bringing it back to Snape, if we use the same standard, it must be 
all
> Neville's fault, right? Because Snape's instructions are perfectly
> clear, and Hermione can brew perfect potions from them, so why 
can't
> Neville?

Alla:

Neville reads and listens to the instructions, he just struggles 
with them, if he routinely did not read and did not listen, and that 
would be a different story to me. But I would be surprised if 
Neville did not struggle with them, if his thoughts are probably 
concentrated on whether Trevor will live or die. JMO, of course.

Irene:
> Oh, and when Harry deliberately disrupts a lesson, Snape would not 
be
> at fault at all if some children were seriously hurt as a result?

Alla:

Erm.... Yes. If Harry would get hurt after he deliberately disrupted 
Snape's lesson, it would be his fault, IMO.


> Irene:
> 
> It's lucky that Snape's a "sadistic git" then, not another 
teacher "with a 
> heart of gold", like Hagrid. I'm not sure Hogwarts could take two.

Alla:

Well, putting irony aside, yep, I believe that is exactly it. :-)

Again, I believe, that JKR often emphasizes that all characters have 
something in them who they ARE and getting their rewards or 
punishments for that, IMO.

Hagrid indeed HAS a "heart of gold" IMO, you know nice guy and all 
that, despite NOT being a very good teacher and that is why I feel 
pretty safe betting that Hagrid will get a reward for that - either 
surviving the war and keeping his position in Hogwarts, or if Harry 
dies, maybe dying a Hero death and living a nice afterlife.

Hagrid NEVER to the best of my recollection shows the desire to harm 
ANYBODY, and I think it is very telling that the one who gets hurt 
during the lesson is Malfoy, who to my mind was needed a dose of 
karmic punishment especially for CoS and badly. And he gets it. 
Should Hagrid made sure that all kids heard his instructions? Yes, I 
suppose he should have done so, but again it is very telling to me 
that the one who gets hurt was plotting to disrupt the lessons, if 
narrator is correct of course (And I don't believe that Neville EVER 
plotted to disrupt Snape lesson).


Oh, and Hagrid gets punished for that lesson, he gets to suffer 
awaiting that beloved animal will die, almost all year long.



> 
> Sherry now:
> 
> If I had to pick, I'd take Hagrid over a sadist like Snape any day 
of the
> year.  


Alla:

Well, I partially agree. :-) I take a Hagrid over Snape in a 
heartbeat as a loyal protector for my child; I would take Hagrid 
over Snape as a friend for my child. I would take  Hagrid over Snape 
as one on one tutor for my child, I am not sure if I will be very 
comfortable leaving my child in the group setting leaded by Hagrid.

But again, this is IMO the key, I believe that JKR has much higher 
opinion of Hagrid's character as a "person" than she has of Snape's  
and that is why she will let him get away with his fallings as a 
teacher.


Just my opinion of course,

Alla







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 30 19:15:04 2005
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:15:04 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmkkkp+utsf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmktno+bu9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143765

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" <lealess at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" 
> <ceridwennight at h...> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ceridwen, finally remembering spinning one's wheels (spinning 
> > > wheels?) after how many months? and wondering if there are any 
> > > other possibilities we haven't explored.
> > >
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Remember the  Sphinx's riddle in GoF?
> > 
> > 'First think of the person who lives in disguise
> > Who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies.
> > Next, tell me what's always the last thing to mend,
> > The middle of middle and end of the end?
> > And finally give me the sound often heard
> > During the search for a hard-to-find word.
> > Now string them together, and answer me this,
> > What creature would you be unwilling to kiss?'
> > 
> > The riddle ties together 'spy', 'spider' and 'end'.
> > 
> > Pippin
> >
lealess:
> I like the spider anologies best, however.
*(snip)*
> a "widow" who turns against a would-be male suitor.  There's the 
> sitting in wait for prey, controlling the more destructive insect 
> population.  There's the trickster, Anansi, who can convince larger 
> animals to do his work and then "steals their glory," primarily 
> through exploiting their character faults.

Ceridwen:
There's the story of the first Christmas tinsel: frosted spider webs 
to punish a frugal woman who kept her house cold and usually swept it 
clean of spiders.  I don't recall it too well, otherwise I'd tell it.

lealess:
> My favorite spider story...
> six disastrous battles...
> spider fails six times, but on the seventh attempt, succeeds...
> king goes back into battle a seventh time and wins.  I know 
> it's wishful thinking that this story could apply to HP, but, oh 
> well...

Ceridwen:
Heh-heh, six disastrous battles, six books out in the series where 
Voldemort escapes again and again; a seventh book coming and we know 
it'll be the last; Robert Bruce being Scotish and isn't JKR?  Or, she 
lives in Scotland (and Hogwarts is in Scotland) so she'd know the 
story?  Could apply.

Back to spiders and spinners.  Spinner's End, the chapter, street, 
clue; Slughorn like a spider in the web of his Slug Club network; the 
widow Zabini, likened by some to a black widow spider, weaving her 
web for each new husband in turn; Snape the mirror to Anansi as 
described, getting others to do his work, slithering out of his DE 
obligations according to Bellatrix.  There's a lot of spider imagery 
in HBP, not to mention the actual appearance of the late Aragog...

Other spinners:

The evil witch, sitting in the tower spinning on an illegal spinning 
wheel when Sleeping Beauty comes along, giving her the spindle so she 
can prick her finger and die.  Only, she doesn't die.  Because of the 
seventh fairy's gift being bestowed after the curse, she falls into a 
slumber for a hundred years, and wakes to a prince's kiss...

Rumplestiltskin, spinning straw into gold for the farmer's daughter 
so she can prove her father's untruthful boasts (and not be killed), 
demanding her firstborn son for his efforts, with the impossible way 
offered of getting the child back, that of knowing Rumplestiltskin's 
name.  He is undone by his own solitary boasting in the forest, 
overheard by the maid.

These are the only spinning stories I can think of. They're deceitful 
or manipulative.  They both seem to be the downfall of the spinner.  
They both seem to have a hopeless situation tied to them, and both 
have a desperate woman, or desperate parents, pleading for help.  
Both have to do with saving a child.  One involves a 
sleeping 'death'.  The same one involves magical spells spoken, the 
gifts of the fairy godmothers and the wicked one who was not invited.

I can probably go off on several tangents here.  How does Snape play 
into either fairy tale?  How does Bellatrix?  Narcissa is a given - 
the desperate queen (and king) hearing the death curse on their 
newborn child; the farmer's daughter now married to the king, who 
longs to save her son from being taken from her.

Does Voldemort fit in at all?  He could be the absent but malicious 
wicked fairy who curses death to Draco (then offers Draco the means 
to his death, his mission to kill Dumbledore, parallel to the spinner 
in the tower, the same wicked fairy in disguise, who offers Sleeping 
Beauty the spindle).  He could be Rumplestiltskin, whose solitary 
bragging is his own downfall - if it was Draco's mission alone, why 
even tell his mother and his aunt?  Could 'spinner' refer to 
Voldemort, and his spun straw or wool, the plot to kill Dumbledore?

Am I getting to into this?

Ceridwen.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 30 19:58:22 2005
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:58:22 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dmktno+bu9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml08u+s8q6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143766


> Ceridwen:
> Back to spiders and spinners.  Spinner's End, the chapter, street, 
> clue; Slughorn like a spider in the web of his Slug Club network; the 
> widow Zabini, likened by some to a black widow spider, weaving her 
> web for each new husband in turn; Snape the mirror to Anansi as 
> described, getting others to do his work, slithering out of his DE 
> obligations according to Bellatrix.  There's a lot of spider imagery 
> in HBP, not to mention the actual appearance of the late Aragog...

Potioncat:
In OoP young Snape is compared to a spider.
In HBP he spins his yarn early, then later knits Draco to health. 
Slughorn is also noted as having knitting patterns, and DD expresses an 
interest in knitting patterns.






From gmeuse at telus.net  Wed Nov 30 02:45:51 2005
From: gmeuse at telus.net (Gary Meuse)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:45:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's a horcrux?
References: <dmgvss+8tcs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <05f901c5f558$31145370$6400a8c0@MeuseFamily>

No: HPFGUIDX 143767

"pcpal67" <pcpal67 at y...> wrote:
>
> Forgive my ignorance, as I am a dedicated muggle.  But I just 
> can't keep track of every new detail of the wizarding world.  
> ...edited... as the books get more sophisticated so does the 
> tangled web of knowledge one needs to follow in order to remember
> and discuss the stories.


For more information about the horcruxes in legend and myth check out 


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough/The_External_Soul_in_Folk-Tales

Gary

It is the duty of every Christian to be Christ to his neighbor.
Martin Luther







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 20:20:05 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:20:05 -0000
Subject: Harry's Army
In-Reply-To: <20051130170411.94279.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dml1hl+d08n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143768

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Johnson
<nymphandoracallel at y...> wrote:
>
>> SSSusan:
> >> 3) Mirrors--set to return according to JKR. Was his 
> >> specifically the Sirius-James two-way mirrors, or something
> >>  more general than that?  I can't remember the interview 
> >> comments. How many of us expected the two-way ones to reappear
> >> in 6, though?  I know I did.  Maybe Harry will utilize them 
> >> while he's away on Horcrux hunts?  <<
> 
> alora:
> >I would love to see this.  Maybe, if Harry's true desire was
> >to find the horcruxes, the mirror of Erised could help also.
> >  ... <


> NymphandoraCallel:
>    
>   I had wondered the same thing about the Mirror of Erised, 
> but Dumbledore said that the mirror would provide you with 
> *neither knowledge or truth*.  ...edited...
>    
> NymphandoraCallel ~ who hopes that one day Harry can look in
> the mirror with Ginny at his side and see only their reflections
> ....
>

bboyminn:

Let's not get too literal here. Just because you can't absolutely
depend on the true of what is shown in the mirror doesn't mean that
everything it shows is a lie. In fact, everything it shows is TRUTH
within a certain context. It is true Harry desires his parents. It is
true the Quirrel imagines himself handing the Stone to his Master. It
is true that Ron desires to be better than all his brothers. However,
despite the /truth/ of these visions; seeing them doesn't make them
reality. 

In context, Dumbledore, in making his statement about 'knowledge and
truth', is pointing out to Harry that it is pointless to spend all his
time dwelling on dreams and visions of his parent to the point were he
forgets to live his own life. 

The Mirror CAN be depended on to show you the /truth/ of your desires,
but desires themselves are not necessarily reality. In the Quirrel
scene with the mirror Quirrel could not find the stone because he
sought personal gain from finding it. Harry on the other hand wanted
to find the Stone for completely selfless reasons, and because of
this, the Stone showed him the /truth/ of it's location. Now, this
exact 'selfless' mechanism is a enchantment that Dumbledore created to
play off of the general nature of the Mirror. So, the 'selfless' part
is not a natural part of the mirror, but the true of the Stone's
location is a natural part of the mirror and it is /truth/. 

My point is that it might be possible to learn the location of one or
more Horcruxes using the Mirror, while I say that, I also acknowledge
that much like the problems Quirrel had with the Mirror, wanting the
Horcruxes might not work out exactly as you had planned. 

In a sense, the Mirror of Erised is a /context/ driven object in the
same sense as the Room of Requirements. When Harry wanted to find out
what Draco was doing in the Room of Requirements, he could never frame
his desire in the proper context to allow the Room to allow Harry to
gain entrance. In the end, Harry was able to find the Room that Malfoy
was using because he discovered the correct context in which to frame
his desire. 

The same would be true for the Mirror, if you can't frame your desire
in the proper context, then the Mirror is never going to show you what
you need to know. In that sense, it can not be /depended on/ to show
absolute knowledge or absolute truth. But in a more general sense,
just because the Mirror can't be counted on to show absolute knowledge
or absolute true doesn't mean that everything it shows you is a lie.

Just trying to add some perspective.

Steve/bboyminn







From lealess at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 20:44:04 2005
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:44:04 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective
In-Reply-To: <dml08u+s8q6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml2uk+hm39@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143769

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Ceridwen:
> Back to spiders and spinners.  <SNIP> There's a lot of spider 
> imagery in HBP, not to mention the actual appearance of the late
> Aragog...
> 
> Potioncat:
> In OoP young Snape is compared to a spider.
>

He was also called "stringy, pallid ... like a plant kept in the 
dark," which reminded me of a neglected spider plant (seen too 
many of those).

It may be farfetched, but I think spiders may be part of the reason 
Hagrid has trusted Snape -- just a hunch I have.  I wonder if Aragog 
will figure in the next book.  Slughorn was certainly anxious to get 
his venom, enough to let down his guard.  And the Acromantula, while 
venomous and anti-social (and wizard-created), is also the mortal 
enemy of the Basilisk, according to the entry in Wikipedia, 
referencing Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

lealess






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 30 20:59:54 2005
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:59:54 -0000
Subject: Victims, Oppressors, and redress (was DD's sacrifice  and Snape sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dmkpc6+8p4a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml3sa+rtnm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143770

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
> wrote:
> <SNIP> 
> > But they're much less peers of Harry than Snape is! Dumbledore is
> > superwizard personified, and Sirius is Harry's godfather and will
> > always be in a superior position. For either of them to rescue 
> > Harry yet again would emphasize Harry's continued dependency, and 
> > make him a second-class hero at best, whereas if  DDM!Snape helped 
> > Harry on his way, then Harry might just accept it as due recompense 
> > for all the crap he's had to put up with from Snape over the years. 
> 
> Lupinlore:
> Boring.  The hero loses all of his parental figures, must strike out 
> on his own, yatta-yatta.  Boring, outworn, and so slavishly followed 
> by JKR as to at times be annoying.  

Pippin:
I'm not sure I'm following you.  You seem to be saying that for Harry to 
succeed on his own would be boring, while  succeeding with the help of 
others would make him less  compelling as a hero, which would only be 
okay if we get another hero instead, someone like Sirius or Dumbledore.
No anti-heroes need apply, because for an anti hero to contribute to
Harry's success would be  morally suspect and, if I understand your 
views,  unsuited to  literature. So, barring the return of Dumbledore or 
Sirius, or the total reformation of Snape,  the only interesting option for 
you  would be for Harry to fail? 

> Lupinlore:
> Co-dependency?  Danger for readers?  Errr... yeah.  Perhaps as big a 
> danger, or bigger, is that we forget the basic truth of adulthood -- 
> adult independence and freedom of action is 90% illusion.  The idea 
> that one grows up, turns one's back firmly on childhood, outgrows 
> parental figures, and moves boldly into the world has some truth -- 
> but only some.  To dismiss the traumas of childhood or the necessity 
> of healing them, or the continued importance of supporting figures, 
> even parental figures, into adulthood is a seductive pathology in 
> its own right.

Pippin:
Growing up is pathological and adulthood is an illusion? Whose basic
truth is that?  Achieving enough independence, emotionally and 
physically,  so that we can survive the loss of our parent 
figures is something  we all have to do, if we live long enough. I've seen
nothing in canon to show that wizards are exempt from this basic truth. 
It'd be nice if it happened only to those who are prepared,  but in a place 
as dangerous as the wizarding world, how likely is that? Harry's hardly 
the only orphan in canon.

I do not dismiss the traumas of childhood. I'm not saying Harry
hasn't been traumatized, only that he might be falsely fixed on Snape 
as the cause of the trauma. I've no doubt his fear of Snape is real, but is it
realistic? Or is it, like Harry's fear of the boggart dementor, provoked
by a superficial resemblance to things that Harry has learned to fear?

That Harry is terrified of Snape hardly proves that Snape is the cause
of Harry's fearfulness. 


Pippin






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 21:15:04 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:15:04 -0000
Subject: Victims, Oppressors, and redress/Harry's fear of Snape
In-Reply-To: <dml3sa+rtnm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml4oo+e3ki@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143771

Pippin:

<SNIP>
> I do not dismiss the traumas of childhood. I'm not saying Harry
> hasn't been traumatized, only that he might be falsely fixed on 
Snape 
> as the cause of the trauma. I've no doubt his fear of Snape is 
real, but is it
> realistic? Or is it, like Harry's fear of the boggart dementor, 
provoked
> by a superficial resemblance to things that Harry has learned to 
fear?
> 
> That Harry is terrified of Snape hardly proves that Snape is the 
cause
> of Harry's fearfulness. 


Alla:

Erm... I snipped the other part of your post, but I am confused by 
this one. You seem to acknowledge that Harry's fear of Snape is 
real, right? But you are also saying that it is not realistic. What 
does it mean?

Harry IS afraid of Snape, but he should not be, because Snape did 
not do anything to cause Harry's fear? Is that what you are arguing?

To repeat from my other post - Harry is feeling that he is 
imprisoning himself when he goes to Occlumency lessons with Snape. 
Are you saying that Harry has no reasons to be afraid of Snape? Are 
you saying that somebody else caused Harry to be afraid of Snape?

If so, who was it? Who caused Harry to be afraid of Snape?

While we are arguing this moment, are you also saying that Neville's 
fear of Snape is unrealistic? And if I understand your argument 
correctly, who caused Neville to be afraid of Snape?

Did I misunderstood you completely?

Alla,
confused.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 21:25:58 2005
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:25:58 -0000
Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment
Message-ID: <dml5d6+v0h9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143772

There are several Snape thread going on right now, and since I'm not
replying to a specific person, I'm not sure where to place this. So, I
thought I would start a new thread.

Many people, for a variety of reasons, are insisting that Snape suffer
in some way for the way he treated Harry and Neville. Many futher feel
that the book will not make sense if this doesn't come to pass.

I'm here to say, that it is very likely that it will NOT come to pass.
Why? Because, in real life, this rarely happens. JKR is writing a
somewhat light and classic "Hero's Journey", but it is a journey with
dark subtext and a very real gritty sense of real-life reality. The
truth is there are mean nasty teachers out there, and they spend there
entire and very long teaching careers making the lives of their
charges miserable. 

We has such a teacher in our school. I believe she taught fourth
grade, and inveriably every student who previously loved school, hate
both school and the teacher as soon as they entered her classroom.
Still she spent her entire life as a teacher, and retired at a ripe
old age. They probably even honored her with a plaque for her many
year of service to education. She was never punished for her 'crimes'. 

I think Snape's lack of direct punishment or ever being called to task
for his mean nasty demeanor is just part of the harsh gritty reality
of these books. The universal appeal of the books is that they are
morally ambiguous. The good guy doesn't always win, the bad guys
aren't clearly defined, and it isn't always fair; just like real life.

The next reason I don't believe Snape will be called to task for his
actions is because we are looking at the events from the perspective
of modern American education; a situation in which I might add that
teachers are powerless and students run amok. But the reality is that
until just a decade or so ago harsh corporeal punishment was allowed
in British Schools; caning was common and frequent. In fact, they are
famous for it. To some extent this is reflected in Snape pushing Harry
and Ron's heads down and wacking them with a composition notebook in
the latest film. But the reality is, that Snape's action in the film
were extremely mild compared to real British schools of not that long ago.

Further, in the modern and not so modern world, Catholic Schools the
world over are noted for their harsh physical punishments of students,
and their absolute no-nonsense ridged rules and blunt authoritarian
enforcement, and yes, even their unfairness. 

The severity of Snape's actions are really a matter of perspective.
Has Snape every raise a hand to Harry? OK, Occlumency lessons don't
count, and Snape throwing a jar at Harry, which missed by the way,
when he found Harry in his pensieve also doesn't count since very few
people would have been that restrained under the circumstances.
Basically, when you condense it down, Snape has a bad attitude toward
Harry and Neville, and YES, he treats them unfairly. But mean, nasty,
and unfair fall far short of abuse in the context of these stories. 

I think accusations of /abuse/ on his part are not so much a matter of
reality, as they are a matter of overblown, overhyped, ultra-liberal
thinking. (Sorry, I know that stings a bit, and for the record, I do
consider myself a liberal; just not an overhyped ultra-liberal.)

In short, in real life, the bad guys don't always get punished. 

Let's see if I can add one more short note about Snape. I have already
said the even under the most ideal circumstances, the wizard world
will never forgive or forget that Snape killed Dumbledore. They may
come to understand, they may even understand to the point where the
courts will grant leniency to Snape, but they will never forgive his
actions.

I do believe that Snape is the only source of help for Harry in
finding the Horcrux. That knowledge reside inside Voldemort's inner
circle, and it is information that is held by an EXTREMELY FEW people.
Now that Snape is trusted above all others, I think he will help
Harry. I just don't see any other way out. As has been pointed out in
other threads, can we really expect Harry to accomplish in less than a
year what Dumbledore could not accomplish in many years? I don't think
so. Even starting with Dumbledore's information; Harry has a
monumental task ahead of him. One that, as I have also said before, he
is woefully unprepared for. Conclusion: there has to be some type of
shortcut, and I see that shortcut as Snape.

This is vital; don't get me wrong, just because Snape helps Harry
doesn't mean he will be elevated to the rank of hero. I've already
said that Snape has commited an unforgivable act in killing
Dumbledore. I have futher said that Snape understood he was commiting
an unforgivable act for which he would surely suffer, either in prison
or by death, a great punishment. That is the foundation of Snape
objection to Harry calling him a coward. Snape has done both an
immensely brave and simultaniously cowardly thing in killing
Dumbledore. He has made a sacrific in the extreme by his action, a
sacrifice that may indeed cost him his life. A sacrifice that will
doom him for all time even under the very best of circumstances.

Yet, despite sealing his own doom, I think the wizard world is capable
of understanding the nature and motivation of Snape's action after the
fact. And while that understanding may brind a degree of leniency,
Snape will still suffer imprisonment for his actions. That is, if he
isn't killed first.

I can't say exactly how Snape will play a role in helping Harry, and
certainly Harry will greatly resist any attempts at help that he knows
are coming from Snape. But I think in the end, Snape will in some way
redeem himself, but that act of redemption, while it will mitigate his
prior actions, will never erase them.

You heard it here first...again.

Steve/bboyminn






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 22:10:45 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:10:45 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <001e01c5f5cb$63aaa0a0$0400a8c0@pensive>
Message-ID: <dml815+lvkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143773

> >>Magpie:
> > <snip>
> > There's a reason that amongst the people who really have to take 
> > the classes, Snape is actually more popular.

> >>Sherry :
> If i had to pick, I'd take Hagrid over a sadist like Snape any day 
> of the year.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I understand your support of Hagrid, Sherry.  He's a sweet man who 
never means to nearly kill the people (and animals) he nearly 
kills.  But the fact of the matter is this: *no one* is taking NEWT 
level CoMC precisely *because* Hagrid is the teacher, including his 
number one supporters, Harry, Hermione, and Ron.  Someone up thread 
suggested Luna might be willing to take a class with Hagrid (can't 
remember who, sorry), but IIRC Luna stated in OotP that she and the 
rest of Ravenclaw think Hagrid's bad teacher.  Harry was a bit 
miffed at that, IIRC.

It's also a fact that Snape's NEWT level Potions class was quite 
full, especially considering the stringent requirements he set 
forth.  And no one, including Neville, dropped out of the NEWT level 
DADA because Snape was the professor.

So at the end of the day, the students of Hogwarts, every single one 
of them, prefer Snape to Hagrid when it comes to teaching.  Which 
fits in with my own personal experience that students much prefer an 
unfriendly teacher who can teach to a friendly teacher who can't.

> >>Sherry:
> <snip>
> I'd take Hagrid's hippogriff lessons over Snape's threats to      
> poison the toad.  and in fact, I'm slightly astonished that people 
> think Hagrid is worse than Snape, if you take those two situations 
> side by side.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
For me, it's because both Neville and Trevor came out of Snape's 
lesson unscathed, and Neville learned potions.  Whereas both 
Buckbeak and Draco nearly died because of Hagrid's lesson, and Draco 
probably didn't learn much about CoMC.

Actually, what *I* find rather astonishing is people having no 
problem with the risk Hagrid's cavalier attitude puts his various 
creatures in.  Buckbeak was nearly executed because of Hagrid's 
carelessness.  Thank goodness for Harry, yes?

I think Hagrid *could* become a good teacher, if he tries.  He has 
the knowledge and the enthusiasm.  But it's going to take some time.

Betsy Hp






From Sherry at PebTech.net  Wed Nov 30 22:09:46 2005
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:09:46 -0000
Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII
In-Reply-To: <438CFEE5.4080804@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dml7va+3h72@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143774

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at s...> wrote:
> 
> Bart:
> 	And are there any other magical governing bodies? What are they doing 
> about the situation? If not, then why aren't non-British wizards or 
> witches involved in the Ministry of Magic?
> 
> 	Bart
>
Amontillada:

Very good questions! It seems to me that the Ministry of Magic has
been presented as specifically governing the Magical branch of the
United Kingdom. The Minister of/for Magic reports (in times of crisis,
when the WW is seen as inevitably intersecting with the Muggle world)
to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street. 

I presume that other nations have comparable officials--Ministers for
Magic, Secretaries of Magic, etc.--and governing bodies which preside
with the magical folk of those various nations.

There is an International Council of Wizardry, which Dumbledore
presided over as Supreme Mugwump. This includes representatives of the
magical governing bodies in various nations, and seems to deal with
magical concerns which cross borderlines. The fact that the
International Council hasn't (to our knowledge) been engaged in the
new Wizarding War suggests to me that Voldemort's attentions have been
focused in Great Britain so far.

Sherry







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 22:27:27 2005
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:27:27 -0000
Subject: Did Hagrid nearly killed Draco? WAS: Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/
In-Reply-To: <dml815+lvkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml90f+6i4a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143775

> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
 Whereas both 
> Buckbeak and Draco nearly died because of Hagrid's lesson, and 
Draco 
> probably didn't learn much about CoMC.


Alla:

Could you refer me to canon, Betsy, which says that Draco is nearly 
died because of Hagrid's lesson?

Unless of course you are arguing that "long, deep gash on Malfoy's 
arm" - PoA, p.118, paperback , even with " blood splattered the 
grass" 
could be considered mortal injury,

Personally, I am pretty sure that even Draco himself did not think 
that, even though of course he tried to show the world that he was 
hurt oh so badly, enough to get Buckbeak executed.


As to Draco not learning much about CoMC, I am guessing that he had 
no 
desire to learn anything from  Hagrid, whom he "fondly" calls "oaf"


"God, this place is going to the dogs," said Malfoy loudly. "That 
oaf 
teaching classes, my father'll have a fit when I tell him----" - 
p.113.

JMO,
Alla















From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 22:31:59 2005
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:31:59 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dml815+lvkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml98v+gf9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143776

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:


> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I understand your support of Hagrid, Sherry.  He's a sweet man who 
> never means to nearly kill the people (and animals) he nearly 
> kills.  But the fact of the matter is this: *no one* is taking 
NEWT 
> level CoMC precisely *because* Hagrid is the teacher, including 
his 
> number one supporters, Harry, Hermione, and Ron.  Someone up 
thread 
> suggested Luna might be willing to take a class with Hagrid (can't 
> remember who, sorry), but IIRC Luna stated in OotP that she and 
the 
> rest of Ravenclaw think Hagrid's bad teacher.  Harry was a bit 
> miffed at that, IIRC.
> 
> It's also a fact that Snape's NEWT level Potions class was quite 
> full, especially considering the stringent requirements he set 
> forth.  And no one, including Neville, dropped out of the NEWT 
level 
> DADA because Snape was the professor.

Oh yes oh yes oh yes.

Truthfully, and this is not a dig in any way to the Hagrid 
supporters, I actually wonder how many of them have kids of their 
own.  

The idea that Draco, who could have been killed, is completely at 
fault for what happens to him is absolutely ludicrous.  Draco makes 
a lot of trouble, sure, but he's still a kid, and he doesn't respect 
Hagrid for a reason.  And it's not just because Hagrid is half 
giant.  Hagrid is only marginally more educated than he is.  

As for Hagrid, he deliberately exposes his students to a horde of 
animals who he himself admits will KILL if "offended."  And, as 
we've said often enough, deliberately sends Harry and Ron into a 
spider's nest of his "pets" from which they barely escape with their 
lives.

Give. Me. Snape. Any. Day. As Betsy has pointed out, that's the 
choice all the students seem to have made.  And really, getting 
browbeaten whilst actually *learning* something is a damned site 
better than getting eaten alive by an enormous spider.

Hands up, all who disagree!  No one?  I thought not.  








From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 22:39:03 2005
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:39:03 -0000
Subject: Did Hagrid nearly killed Draco? WAS: Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/
In-Reply-To: <dml90f+6i4a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml9m7+peol@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143777

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
 
> Alla:
> 
> Could you refer me to canon, Betsy, which says that Draco is 
nearly 
> died because of Hagrid's lesson?

It's not a matter of whether he died or not.  It's a matter of 
whether or not he *could* have.  By Hagrid's own admission, 
hippogriffs are very touchy creatures who might kill you if you look 
at them funny. If someone is driving drunk and just doesn't *happen* 
to kill anyone, does that make it okay?  

And Harry and Ron, as has been pointed out by many, nearly WERE 
killed by Hagrid's spiders.  That much cannot be disputed.
 
> As to Draco not learning much about CoMC, I am guessing that he 
had 
> no 
> desire to learn anything from  Hagrid, whom he "fondly" calls "oaf"
> 

That's because Hagrid *is* an oaf. Hagrid is the very definition of 
the word, which means "simple" and "clumsy".  

I don't hate Hagrid.  I like him a lot.  He's a well meaning oaf, 
but he's still an oaf, and he should not be in a position of 
responsibility over kids.  Groundskeeper, fine.  Teacher?  Er, no.

Draco is not always the best judge of character, but even a stopped 
clock is right twice a day.

Leslie







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 22:46:34 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:46:34 -0000
Subject: Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals)
In-Reply-To: <dmktoi+h9of@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmla4a+9vhq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143778

> >>Alla:
> <major snip>
> ...I think it is very telling that the one who gets hurt 
> during the lesson is Malfoy, who to my mind was needed a dose of 
> karmic punishment especially for CoS and badly.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
See, this is the thing I *really* don't get.  Draco is the series' 
punching bag in, I believe, each and every book.  And the amount of 
pain he dishes out himself is practically negligable.  So much so 
quite a few people were ready to write him off as totally 
unimportant to the series until HBP.  He *annoys* Harry and friends, 
but I don't recall him ever actually hurting them.

Alla, I think you're referencing Draco wishing Hermione gets killed 
in CoS in your above comment.  (It's the only "action" of Draco's I 
can think of.)  That, to you, deserved been torn into by a rather 
large and dangerous creature?  Doesn't Draco get hit in the face 
with a swelling potion in CoS?  (IIRC he has a hard time lifting his 
head after he's been hit.)  Why isn't that enough?  Harry has wished 
Snape dead at various points and times throughout the books -- does 
this mean he deserved the bloodletting Pettigrew put him through in 
GoF?

It's funny because Draco is often painted, within the fandom, as a 
popular boy with all the money and power lording over Harry.  In 
short, he's supposed to be the bullying cool kid our nerdy hero has 
to eventually overcome.  But from the very first book it's 
established that Harry is more popular, and has more money and 
connection than Draco.  Whenever Harry and Draco conflict, Harry not 
only wins, he pounds Draco into the ground.

So this idea that Buckbeak gives Draco something that's been coming 
to him.... It just doesn't work for me.  I kinda have to see someone 
win a lot before I can decide it's time for him to lose.

Betsy Hp






From duststarr at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov 30 22:57:23 2005
From: duststarr at sbcglobal.net (Kristen)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:57:23 -0000
Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompet
In-Reply-To: <dmkohs+r7ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmlaoj+aq82@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143779



> MercuryBlue:
<SNIP>
> We know Dumbledore met with a known Parselmouth while in possession 
> of the memory, because he got it from Morfin Gaunt. Is it too much 
> of a stretch to suppose he asked Morfin for a translation?
>


Kristen:
I don't think that DD could understand Parseltongue. If he could would he not have at least know what the monster in the chamber of secrets was. Yet no one knew.  As to Morfin, he could speak English, he just didn't. He would have had to speak normal in his trial.
Kristen







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 23:14:41 2005
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:14:41 -0000
Subject: Did Hagrid nearly killed Draco? WAS: Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/
In-Reply-To: <dml9m7+peol@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmlbp1+48js@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143780

> >>Alla:
> > Could you refer me to canon, Betsy, which says that Draco is 
> > nearly died because of Hagrid's lesson?

> >>Leslie: 
> It's not a matter of whether he died or not.  It's a matter of 
> whether or not he *could* have.  By Hagrid's own admission, 
> hippogriffs are very touchy creatures who might kill you if you   
> look at them funny. If someone is driving drunk and just doesn't   
> *happen* to kill anyone, does that make it okay?  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's exactly it.  Hagrid lost control of Buckbeack, and when 
Buckbeak attacked Draco, Hagrid wasn't there to stop him.  If Draco 
had been looking away, or hadn't thrown up his arm (if that's how it 
happened), or if Buckbeak had slashed in a different direction, 
Draco could well have died.  It doesn't take that long to bleed out 
from a throat wound, and Hagrid doesn't seem to know magical first 
aid.

There's a reason several states in the US have a one bite rule when 
it comes to dogs.  Sometimes one bite is all it takes.  And 
hippogriffs are much larger than dogs.

Now, it's fairly obvious that JKR wasn't going to go that direction 
with this particular part of the tale.  So she made Draco's wound 
less than life-threatening (though much more than a scratch) and had 
Draco really play it up, thereby lessening reader sympathy.  But at 
the same time Pansy's tears are written as genuine, IMO, and the 
entire class is described as "shaken".  As well, the legal threat 
against Buckbeak is written as quite real, and the Trio are unable 
to come up with any real law for Hagrid to use on his side of the 
case.

So I think JKR does use Hagrid's first lesson to showcase his dismal 
sense of judgment and also his failure as a teacher.  By having 
Draco be the one attacked (instead of say, Neville or Seamus) Harry 
is still able to maintain his friendship and respect for Hagrid.  
Hagrid remains in Harry's life, but Harry tends to not take Hagrid's 
judgement very seriously.  (Hmmm... I wonder if this will be 
important in the last book?)

Betsy Hp






From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br  Wed Nov 30 23:19:05 2005
From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (Luciana Malta)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:19:05 -0300 (ART)
Subject: Snape isn't evil
Message-ID: <20051130231906.74982.qmail@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143781

lucianam73 wrote:
> > according to you; same here with me but since HBP, more
specifically
> > Snape's answers to Bellatrix in Chapter 3, I suspect he's loyal to
> > Voldemort.

> Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> Except that there is one rather key action which is not
explained: why
> did he tip off the Order of the Phoenix to the raid on the Ministry
in a
> timely manner?
>

Lucianam:

Good One.

I just wrote a reply to this Snape isn't evil thread, unfortunately
before I read your post, otherwise I'd have included this answer to
you.

I suspect Snape is loyal to Voldemort or a competing Dark-Lord-to-be,
but I just 'suspect'. I think it's possible that JKR pulls good Snape
in B7, though!

I too think he could have gotten off with NOT warning the Order. He
could have told DD he never understood what Harry meant by 'They got
Snuffles', he's a Occlumens after all. Dumbledore is no fool but Snape
could have taken that chance.

It's also difficult to imagine 'Loyalk-to-Voldemort-Snape' deciding
his precious role as a spy at Hogwarts was more important than
obtaining the prophecy.

Only one Huge Thing stands in the way of Snape's warning the Order
proving he's good: why didn't Voldemort punish him heavily for ruining
the Prophecy mission? Voldemort must have had reasons to believe
Snape's actions were acceptable. If Voldemort didn't question Snape's
loyalty as a DE because he warned the Order, why should we believe the
only explanation for Snape's doing so is his being loyal to Dumbledore?

Lucianam



		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! doce lar. Fa?a do Yahoo! sua homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 30 23:25:23 2005
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:25:23 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals)
In-Reply-To: <dmla4a+9vhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007b01c5f605$579d6790$0400a8c0@pensive>

No: HPFGUIDX 143782

Betsy Hp:
See, this is the thing I *really* don't get.  Draco is the series' 
punching bag in, I believe, each and every book.  And the amount of 
pain he dishes out himself is practically negligable.  So much so 
quite a few people were ready to write him off as totally 
unimportant to the series until HBP.  He *annoys* Harry and friends, 
but I don't recall him ever actually hurting them.



Sherry now:

i think the problem is the overall attitude of Draco.  Even if he hasn't
physically hurt people, he's been nasty and insulting.  Making truly rotten
comments about the Weasley family's poverty, Mrs. Weasley's weight and all
the rest.  In any world, insulting someone's well loved mother is a bad
thing.  Even Harry doesn't stoop to that till Draco insulted Molly again in
GOF.  and even then, it's actually Draco he insults with his comment about
Narcissa with her nose in the air, if I remember correctly.  And that bugged
me at the time as well.  I didn't like Harry stooping to Draco's level, yet
I loved him defending the Weasleys at the same time.  Draco teases Neville
unkindly, in ways that are far too familiar to people who have been teased
for things beyond their control as children.  I certainly got teased plenty
for being blind and having arthritis.  He makes cracks about Harry having no
family to return to for the holidays.  not a very nice kid.  So, few readers
have much sympathy for the kid who is mean to everyone else.  It doesn't
always have to take physical bullying to get that reaction.  

Sherry




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 23:36:18 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:36:18 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <dmkc3h+np1k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmld1j+dho7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143783

> Irene: 
> Can you imagine McGonagall not noticing that some students didn't 
hear
> a crucial bit of instructions? She would notice that Malfoy
> deliberately didn't listen, would make him repeat, take points, 
repeat
> it again etc.

a_svirn:

Actually, I can. Wasn't it McGonagall's lesson when Neville 
transplanted his own ears? Obviously he missed a crucial part of her 
instruction, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Also I don't think 
it's fair to compare Hagrid's first ever lesson with McGonagall 
almost forty years of experience. I imagine on her first day as a 
teacher she wasn't half as formidable as she is now.

> Irene: 
> I can't believe people defend Hagrid for this lesson. He didn't 
bring
> one Hippogriff, as in the movie, he brought several and the 
children
> were supposed to work with them simultaneously.
> Even if they'd all listened to the last word of the instructions,
> there is no way Hagrid could supervise this lesson to some 
standard of
> safety.

a_svirn:
They weren't *supposed* to work with them simultaneously. They 
*were* working with them simultaneously. And interestingly enough 
Draco was the only one who had problems, precisely, because he 
hadn't listened the instructions. Well, Neville didn't make much 
progress with his hippogriff, still he wasn't in any danger. 

> Irene: 
> Bringing it back to Snape, if we use the same standard, it must be 
all
> Neville's fault, right? 

a_svirn:

Er.. what is Neville's fault? His poor performance at potions? Well, 
yes, I suppose it is.

> Irene: 
>Because Snape's instructions are perfectly
> clear, and Hermione can brew perfect potions from them, so why 
can't
> Neville?

a_svirn:
Well, there is that. 

>Irene:
> Oh, and when Harry deliberately disrupts a lesson, Snape would not 
be
> at fault at all if some children were seriously hurt as a result?

a_svirn:
No, responsibility was Harry's. Not that they were hurt, exactly. 
Just had their noses momentarily enlarged.

Irene: 
>  It's lucky that he's a "sadistic git" then, not another 
teacher "with
> a heart of gold", like Hagrid. I'm not sure Hogwarts could take 
two.

a_svirn:
Do you know I believe one doesn't necessarily have to be a git, 
sadistic or otherwise, to maintain discipline in the classroom? Take 
Slughorn for instance ? a perfectly amiable gentleman, and yet he 
experiences no difficulties whatsoever in holding his pupils 
attention. 






From schumar1999 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 23:35:40 2005
From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:35:40 -0000
Subject: Snape isn't evil
In-Reply-To: <20051130231906.74982.qmail@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dmld0c+nbun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143784

Lucianam: <snip>
Only one Huge Thing stands in the way of Snape's warning the Order
proving he's good: why didn't Voldemort punish him heavily for ruining
the Prophecy mission? Voldemort must have had reasons to believe
Snape's actions were acceptable. If Voldemort didn't question Snape's
loyalty as a DE because he warned the Order, why should we believe the
only explanation for Snape's doing so is his being loyal to Dumbledore?


Marianne S: 
Where is the canon that shows LV knew Snape was the one that warned 
the Order? 







From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Wed Nov 30 23:43:01 2005
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:43:01 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's-death-is-a-fake-theory
Message-ID: <281.e3edd6.30bf9305@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143785

 
In a message dated 11/30/2005 2:55:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
kchuplis at alltel.net writes:

I read  an interview with JKR in which she talked about how she cried when 
she wrote  
the death. Her husband (?) (who did not know WHO died) said   something to 
the effect 
of "well don't kill him" but she said he had to  die. She'd known it for a 
long time but 
went along in denial until she had  to write it. I'm pretty certain that DD 
is dead dead. 
I've often thought  about killing off your characters as being something that 
must be 
most  difficult to do. (I will be most disappointed, however, if she is 
ruthless  enough 
to kill HP. I don't think that will happen. <crosses  fingers>. )


--------------------------
Sherrie here:
 
IIRC, that interview appeared before OotP - she was referring, not to  
Dumbledore's death, but to the death of Sirius.  Not that I don't think she  was 
upset about Dumbledore, or that she didn't "know" that he had to die!
 
Sherrie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 23:51:07 2005
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:51:07 -0000
Subject: Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals)
In-Reply-To: <dmla4a+9vhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dmldtb+mimb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143786

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> See, this is the thing I *really* don't get.  Draco is the series' 
> punching bag in, I believe, each and every book.  And the amount of 
> pain he dishes out himself is practically negligable.  So much so 
> quite a few people were ready to write him off as totally 
> unimportant to the series until HBP.  He *annoys* Harry and 
> friends, but I don't recall him ever actually hurting them.

So, why does Rowling *make* him the punching bag, the object of a 
kind of Schadenfreude that gets a good degree of overt authorial 
approval?  [And it's even more overt when she disapproves (albeit 
jokingly) of certain attitudes fans take towards this character.]

I think the answer is that she cares a great deal about intention and 
character.  It's fair to say that Draco doesn't manage to do physical 
harm; he's not killing people or anything.  But as I've raised before 
in other contexts, the 'no harm no foul' standard has all kinds of 
ramifications that make it an undesirable measure.

Draco is malicious.  Draco wants to see bad things happen to other 
people who he doesn't like, and he's happy to exploit whatever he can 
exploit.  One prime case is the whole affair with Buckbeak, where the 
text repeatedly points out how Draco is malingering.  These are not 
the actions of a person of good character, and that's a lot of what 
is being weighed on the scale when it comes to determining 
comeuppance.

And make no mistake, Rowling really, really likes comeuppance.  Why 
else phrase the comments about Umbridge in the way that she does:

MA: Are we going to see more of her? [Jo nods.] You say that with an 
evil nod.

JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another 
little bit more before I finish. 

Now, you might object that Umbridge is really and truly evil and 
Draco is not in her category.  I'd say this is generally true; 
there's no way that Draco is as nasty of a person as Umbridge.  But 
he is indeedy nasty--and hence Rowling writes him as taking the 
punches.  She thinks he's done wrong, but that does co-exist with the 
nuance and sympathy that she shows characters.

That's why (contra Steve) I actually *do* expect some kind of overt 
comeuppance for Snape, probably a little more than his flight at the 
end of book 6.  Why?  Because I think she regards his behavior 
towards the students as nasty and unpleasant.  She's the one who 
calls it an abuse of power, after all.

It's not realistic, of course, but that's the joy of writing 
fiction.  You get to determine the moral rules of your universe--
indeed, you get to determine *if* you're writing a universe with some 
kind of definite moral structure to it.  This isn't George R. R. 
Martin, writing a story explicitly lacking in the punishment and 
reward regulators of fiction.  Rowling's in a different part of the 
genre.  

Each reader is free to like and approve of this approach or not, but 
I think it's there regardless, and has to be taken into account.

-Nora still ponders an unholy melange of Kant, Aristotle, and Shklar 
to try to keep track of things






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 23:55:01 2005
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:55:01 -0000
Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals
In-Reply-To: <008201c5f5c1$91bf3e10$aa7f400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dmle4l+10mdv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143787


> Magpie:
> 
> That's hardly the attitude with which to approach a class of 13-
year-olds on 
> dangerous animals.  I went to classes involving less-dangerous 
animals as a 
> kid and believe me, that was not the way it went, especially since 
no class 
> of kids or adults has everyone listening all the time.  But even 
if Hagrid 
> was being heard, that's not the utmost clarity at all. That's more 
the way 
> you warn your friend to not touch your beer than the way you teach 
a kid to 
> deal with a giant fanged predator.

a_svirn:
I confess, I am a little baffled with your argumentation. First, you 
acknowledge that the children in question are around 13 year-old, 
and then you say something about warning not to touch your teddy-
bear ? surely an altercation that belongs to the nursery? What's 
more, with your friend you are on the equal social footing, which 
makes his or her utterances somewhat lacking in the illocutive power 
department. When, however, an adult, and a teacher at that, tells 
you ? very clearly ? that insulting hippogriffs may well prove 
fatal, you have only yourself to blame if you disregard his warning. 
Compare with Dumbledore's warning about the forbidden corridor in 
PS. 

> Magpie:
> I definitely don't think this was the way Hagrid was thinking.  It 
doesn't 
> seem like he even considered the idea that someone would get hurt 
to prove 
> his point, he just didn't (continues to not) consider the animals 
hurting 
> people as a possibility he really has to focus on.  If this was 
Hagrid's 
> attitude it sounds like getting somebody hurt was the point of the 
class.

a_svirn:
Then why he was so devastated having achieved his ambition? 







From nymphandoracallel at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 30 22:25:32 2005
From: nymphandoracallel at yahoo.com (Rebecca Johnson)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes (was Re: Harry's Army)
In-Reply-To: <dml1hl+d08n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20051130222532.73440.qmail@web35905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143812

bboyminn:
> Let's not get too literal here. Just because you can't absolutely depend on the true of what is shown in the mirror doesn't mean that everything it shows is a lie. In fact, everything it shows is TRUTH within a certain context. It is true Harry desires his parents. It is true the Quirrel imagines himself handing the Stone to his Master. It is true that Ron desires to be better than all his brothers. However, despite the /truth/ of these visions; seeing them doesn't make them reality  ...edited...  <

NymphandoraCallel:
  Thank you for your response, I definitally do agree with this, although I had not though of it yet in those terms, everything that the mirror has shown has, in fact, been a truth in its reflection of the person?s desires, but thats where I see the problem.  
   
  bboyminn:
  >The Mirror CAN be depended on to show you the /truth/ of your desires, but desires themselves are not necessarily reality.
  My point is that it might be possible to learn the location of one or more Horcruxes using the Mirror, while I say that, I also acknowledge that much like the problems Quirrel had with the Mirror, wanting the
Horcruxes might not work out exactly as you had planned.<
 
NymphandoraCallel:  
  Ok, so the mirror shows you desires, not reality, assuming Harry could use it to find the horcruxes, would it be able to show the actual location of them, or would it be just showing Harry finding them, in a fictional location?  The truth which the mirror is showing Harry would then be the desire to find the horcrux but not actually telling him where to look.  And even if it was able to show you where to look, how broad of a view would you get??  For example had the mirror shown the location of the fake locket horcrux, would you have seen the locket at the bottom of the basin after the potion had already been drunk?  That would not have been terribly helpful without the knowledge of the potion, the inferi, the cave or the even location of the cave... basically putting him where he was originally.
 
 bboyminn:  
>In a sense, the Mirror of Erised is a /context/ driven object in the same sense as the Room of Requirements. When Harry wanted to find out what Draco was doing in the Room of Requirements, he could never frame
his desire in the proper context to allow the Room to allow Harry to gain entrance. In the end, Harry was able to find the Room that Malfoy was using because he discovered the correct context in which to frame
his desire. 
  The same would be true for the Mirror, if you can't frame your desire in the proper context, then the Mirror is never going to show you what you need to know. In that sense, it can not be /depended on/ to show absolute knowledge or absolute truth. But in a more general sense, just because the Mirror can't be counted on to show absolute knowledge or absolute true doesn't mean that everything it shows you is a lie.<
 
NymphandoraCallel:  
Exactly, the mirror shows your deepest desires; which is not something as easily changed as walking by the room of requirement three times saying something different.  Harry?s deepest desire may be Dumbledore helping him find the horcruxes or victory over Voldemort or again his parents only now with Sirius and Dumbledore joining the group (and Ginny, Ron and Hermione) after the defeat of Voldemort. I don't think that you could just think something was your deepest desire and force it to be so.
   
  Also, one of my problems with the mirror being able to show you the location of the horcruxes or Harry finding them is that every time we have seen the mirror in use the observer has been looking at his own reflection, as he currently is, and in his current location, but with other people or things around him.  What if he could use the mirror to find out WHAT the other horcruxes were?  Harry could be standing there surround by the seven destroyed horcruxes, he would then know what he had to look for
my only concern would be does the mirror *know* what the horcruxes are?  Could it tell Harry what they were if neither he nor the mirror already knew?  Again, and correct me if I?m wrong, every instance in which we have seen the mirror in use it has shown the observer with something that he has, at one point or another, seen or come in contact with (Harry?s parents, head boy badge, warm socks
).  The exception to this has been the actual SS, which the *mirror* knew what it looked like,
 so it could reflect it
  But does it know what the horcruxes are or where they are in order to show them to Harry??  
   
  And anyway, where is the Mirror of Erised now?
   
  NymphandoraCallel





From jondudley28 at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Nov 30 21:18:14 2005
From: jondudley28 at yahoo.co.uk (jondudley28)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:18:14 -0000
Subject: Snape is Good, Dumbledore Knew
In-Reply-To: <dbiqaf+jbcu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dml4um+i321@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143828

This is my first post too. It's a bit long and full of quotes, 
I'm afraid, but I have put a conclusion at the end to make up 
for it. 

"another_potter_fan" wrote (#134756):
<snip>
> Anyway, here's my theory: DD knew someone was trying to kill 
> him.  DD knew he could only trust Snape, so he allowed Snape 
> to use the AK curse, but WITHOUT the intent to kill DD (again, 
> you have to mean it). <snip>

Annemflynn <annemflynn at y...> wrote (#137425):
> I too think DD faked his own death. The first potion Harry 
> made successfully with the assistance of the HBP was Draught 
> of the Living Dead, which is, I believe, what DD drank in the 
> cave. Snape looked at DD for a split second on the tower 
> before doing the AV curse. <snip> If DD didn't hide his 
> thoughts at that moment, he could have conveyed to Snape that
> he drank the Draught of the Living Dead. Snape, <snip> would 
> have known how to react to that. JKR spent a lot of time on
> silent spells in this book. I think that's the loophole. If he 
> didn't mean the AV curse and did a silent spell at the 
> same...<snip> <<

Jon:
I disagree with idea that Dumbledore faked his death as a clever 
ruse as "another_potter_fan" and "annemflynn" put forward.

The first point is that Dumbledore fell from the ramparts and 
this broke his body "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the 
strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. 
Harry reached out...wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with 
his own sleeve." (Half Blood Prince; UK edition; Chap 27 The 
Lightning Struck Tower pp. 568). The blood suggests internal 
injuries that would have caused death if the killing curse did 
not.

Secondly Snape really did seem to have the feelings and will to 
kill Dumbledore "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there 
was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face" 
(Half Blood Prince; UK edition; Chap 28 The Flight of the Prince 
pp. 556) It is possible that Snape could have been acting, but 
that would mean that he had broken the conditions of the 
Unbreakable Vow and would himself die.

I also believe Snape is on the side of good, and Dumbledore knew 
that Snape had made the Unbreakable Vow. If we then read matt, 
pastafor5 and kels posts' again: (sorry, bear with me!)

Matt hpfanmatt wrote (#133609): 
> <SNIP> I am becoming more and more convinced, although it was 
> not my first reading, that DD intended all along for Snape to 
> deliver the coup de grace. Why else is he calling for Harry to 
> get Snape, both in Hogsmeade and up on the tower? Snape is not 
> the resident Healer; he is not even the potions master at this 
> point. I think DD knows that his moment has come, and that by 
> putting him out of his misery Snape can cement his position 
> with LV and the Death Eaters -- and save Draco from his 
> predicament. <SNIP>

Pastafor5 pastafor5 at ... wrote (#133018): 
> The one key moment that makes me think (sadly) that Snape did 
> this out of loyalty to Voldemort rather than Dumbledore is 
> when Draco tells Dumbledore that Snape made the Unbreakable 
> Vow to his mother. Dumbledore says it isn't true and that 
> Snape just made that up to get information from him. But we 
> know that it was actually true. If Dumbledore didn't know 
> that, then it appears Snape must have been loyal to Voldemort 
> instead. Anyone see any loopholes? I hope so - it breaks my 
> heart to think that Snape could do that to Dumbledore. << 

Kel kellybroughton at ... wrote (#134317): 
> Actually, you will be glad to know that I *did* think of a 
> loophole. Hard as it may be to believe at first, DD lied when 
> he made that reply. He couldn't let Draco (or any other 
> present DEs) know that DD was aware all year long that Draco 
> was up to something. Because the only person who would have 
> informed DD of the plan is Snape. And if it's discovered (by 
> the bad side) that Snape babbled.... <<

Jon:
And this passage from the book

"
said Harry forcefully. `What's Snape done?'
	`I dunno, Harry, I shouldn't have heard it at all! I ? 
well, I was comin' outta the Forest the other evenin' an' I 
overheard `em talking ? well, arguin'. Didn't like ter draw 
attention to meself, so I sorta skulked an' tried not ter listen, 
but it was a ? well, a heated discussion, an' it wasn't easy ter 
block it out.'
	`Well?' Harry urged him, as Hagrid shuffled his enormous 
feet uneasily.
	`Well ? I jus' hears Snape sayin' Dumbledore took too 
much for granted an' maybe he ? Snape ? didn't wan' to do it any 
more - '

 	
`anyway, Dumbledore told him flat out he'd agreed to do 
it an' that was all there was to it. Pretty firm with him.' " 
(Half Blood Prince; UK edition; Chap 19 Elf Tails pp. 380)

I agree with "Matt" and "Kel". I think the quote proves Dumbledore
knew that Snape had made the Unbreakable Vow, and understood that
Snape had no choice but to kill him. That was why Dumbledore was
giving special lessons to Harry throughout the year. He could have
begun in an earlier school year, but he chose this one because he 
knew he would die. He was helping Harry to learn LV weaknesses 
("know thy enemy"): both magical and psychological, so he could 
defeat him. I think Dumbledore knows he is too old to defeat LV 
(remember his injured hand) and so passed on his skills and 
knowledge to the next generation who will have a better chance 
(Harry, Ron and Hermione). 

I think the quote also proves the Snape is on the good side. He 
was having second thoughts about killing Dumbledore, because he 
probably believed Dumbledore was more valuable. However, I think 
Dumbledore thought Snape could be useful to Harry as an anonymous 
source of information on LV. 

Borrowing Karen's quote from the first post (#132908):
> Chpt 28 The Flight of the Prince p 564 (UK ed)
> "`DON'T -` screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented,
> inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, 
> howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them, `- CALL ME
> A COWARD'" <<

Jon:
I think Snape is angry because he not a coward. He has just 
done something incredibly brave: killed Dumbledore, his greatest 
friend and ally, because he asked him to. 

I also agree with Luna:
Luna wrote (#134839):
> Didn't Jo explained why she had to kill DD in her last
> Interview with Emerson? Isn't it the point that Harry has 
> to go for it by himself? She sounded very much sure of DD 
> being dead... << 

Jon:
Harry has to come into his own, and he can't do this with 
Dumbledore alive. As a result, JKR made a decision to kill him. 

In Conclusion:
1) Dumbledore is dead because 
a)	the fall would have killed him, if not Avada Kedavra 
b)	Snape appears to have had the hatred and force of will 
to do it
2) Dumbledore knew Snape would kill him because
	a) of the argument with Snape
	b) he prepared Harry, Ron and Hermione to defeat LV by 
giving them his weaknesses
Therefore he lied to Draco when he told him he didn't know about 
the unbreakable vow.  
3) Snape Is Good because
	a) he argued with Dumbledore because he did not want to 
kill him. 
	b) his anger at Harry is because of his own pain and guilt 
at having to kill Dumbledore.
4) Harry has to come into his own, and he can't do this with
Dumbledore alive. As a result, JKR made a decision to kill him.

Jon











From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Nov 30 16:22:36 2005
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:22:36 -0000
Subject: Snape as teacher
Message-ID: <dmkjkc+3oq7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 143853

The discussions regarding Snape's teaching style reminded me of this 
article from MSNBC. Forgive me if the link has been posted before. As 
an online professor, I particularly liked the paragraph on those always 
needing an "A". 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9959467/

kchuplis
(hope this is OK, Elves)